[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 130 (Thursday, September 25, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7908-H7909]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LET JUSTICE PREVAIL

  (Mr. BARR of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks and include 
extraneous material.)
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Madam Speaker, the difference between the 
Department of Justice of 1957 and 1997 could not be more starkly 
realized than looking at these tremendously important and positive 
images of a struggle for civil rights 40 years ago in which the United 
States Department of Justice was leading the way to uphold our laws, 
and the Department of Justice of 1997 which has become known as the 
stonewalling capital of the capital.
  Madam Speaker, there are some of those that say because the Attorney 
General recently took the tiny step for the Department of Justice and 
that giant, giant tiny step for the Department of Justice, that we 
ought to say, wonderful, the Attorney General has decided to decide to 
decide whether to appoint a special prosecutor.
  Madam Speaker, I join the New York Times, which, on September 14, 
called on the Attorney General to step aside and let justice prevail 
today as it did in 1957.
  Madam Speaker, the New York Times editorial is as follows:

             [From the New York Times, September 14, 1997]

                          The Prosecutor Game

       The torrent of disclosures of political fund-raising abuses 
     by the Democrats last year has no doubt had a numbing effect 
     on many Americans. But if ordinary citizens find it hard to 
     keep track of the shady characters, bank transfers and memos 
     suggesting that Vice President Gore and others knew what they 
     say they did not know, the justice Department, has no excuse. 
     Recent weeks have brought fresh evidence that the depart- 
     ment's investigators are either lethargic or over their 
     heads. Even worse, Attorney General Janet Reno's failure to 
     seek an independent counsel to oversee the probe no longer 
     looks like a principled assertion of faith in Justice's 
     career staff. It looks like a political blocking operation to 
     protect President Clinton and Mr. Gore from the vigorous 
     investigation that would be aimed at any other officeholder 
     who had received so much suspicious money.
       Earlier this month, Ms. Reno was warned by Republicans in 
     the House that ``the mood in Congress to remove you from 
     office grows daily.'' That is a drastic step we are not quite 
     ready to endorse. But the Congressional frustration is 
     understandable in light

[[Page H7909]]

     of recent developments. It is hard to fathom, for example, 
     why Justice Department investigators were so clearly taken by 
     surprise when it turned out that the Democratic Party had 
     engaged in a systematic scheme of juggling its books, 
     transferring money from one account to another in possible 
     violation of the law. Had the investigators been doing their 
     job, they would have also discovered months ago that the 
     basis for Ms. Reno's repeatedly saying that there were no 
     credible allegations of wrongdoing against Vice President Al 
     Gore was flat wrong.
       After disclosures in the press that the Democrats mixed 
     campaign accounts that are supposed to be rigidly separate, 
     Ms. Reno abruptly announced that her department would 
     actively consider asking for a special counsel to take over 
     the case. But there really is no need for delay in 
     recognizing the obvious. Moreover, it would be a political 
     subterfuge to limit the special counsel to Mr. Gore. His boss 
     has earned one, too.
       The first order of business ought to be fixing 
     responsibility for the Democrats' fund-raising abuses, not 
     simply the shuffling of accounts but whether there were any 
     quid pro quos for all those donors and whether anyone in a 
     major responsibility knew of the laundering of money and 
     illegal transfers of funds from foreign sources. Among the 
     highest priorities, in addition, is determining whether Mr. 
     Gore violated Federal laws by soliciting money from big 
     donors from his office at the White House.
       There may be a temptation among Democrats and others to 
     suggest that bookkeeping violations are inconsequential. But 
     that would be a fundamental misreading of the issue. The 
     reasons go back to the reforms that followed the biggest 
     political scandal in modern American history.
       Watergate led to two historic changes in American politics. 
     First was the establishment of a process in which the 
     Attorney General may seek the appointment of a special 
     prosecutor, which later became known as an independent 
     counsel, to investigate cases against top Administration 
     officials. In 1993 when the statute was renewed, Ms. Reno 
     herself affirmed the importance of being able to turn to an 
     outside counsel to avoid ``an inherent conflict of interest'' 
     when the Attorney General, an appointee of the President, 
     must oversee an investigation that could damage the 
     Administration politically. She is burdened by that conflict 
     today.
       Watergate also produced limits on campaign contributions 
     that were flagrantly violated last year. Since 1974, it has 
     been illegal for an individual to contribute more than $1,000 
     to a Federal candidate per election or more than $20,000 per 
     year to a political party for candidates election expenses. 
     Individuals may not give more than $25,000 in such 
     contributions a year for all candidates and parties put 
     together. These strictly limited contributions that are used 
     for direct candidate support are called ``hard money.'' 
     Federal election law separates hard gifts from the unlimited 
     ``soft money'' that can be given to the party for their 
     operating and promotion efforts. Last week we learned that 
     the Democratic National Committee routinely deposited soft 
     money in its hard money or candidate accounts without 
     informing the donors. Although some of the money was later 
     shifted to other accounts, it is clear that the D.N.C. was 
     casual about one of the law's most basic distinctions.
       Ms. Reno's primary duty is to uphold the laws on the books. 
     But her Democratic loyalty seems to flow toward those bearing 
     endless legalistic explanations as to why the laws either do 
     not mean what they say or can be ignored with impunity. She 
     should step aside and let someone with a less partisan view 
     of law enforcement take over the crucial task of 
     investigating the White House money flow.

                          ____________________