[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 106 (Friday, July 31, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9536-S9540]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         THE ROLE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with a very 
sober, very serious discussion. That concerns the role, the 
effectiveness, and the job that the Attorney General of the United 
States is currently doing. The Attorney General, under title 28 of the 
U.S. Code, section 515, is vested as the chief law enforcement officer 
of the country. That is a very important vesting of power. She is the 
chief law enforcement officer of the country. She has the 
responsibility of making sure the laws are carried out, as part of the 
executive branch.
  Congress, some time ago, realized that every once in a while there 
might be a conflict of enforcing the law strictly, if there are 
allegations of impropriety with members of the executive branch, so the 
independent counsel statute was passed. It was passed as a follow-up to 
Watergate. Can you really investigate your own boss? Can the Attorney 
General investigate the President or Vice President or some other 
Cabinet official because they are serving with those individuals at 
their pleasure? As a matter of fact, Attorney General Reno was 
appointed and confirmed by the Senate in, I believe, 1993; and then 
there was some speculation she would be reconfirmed or reappointed by 
the President, and subsequently she was.
  Since that time, I think all of my colleagues, and certainly all the 
country, know that this administration has had a lot of legal conflicts 
and problems. One of the biggest issues was the issue of campaign 
finance. Both the House and Senate have conducted hearings. I presently 
serve on the Governmental Affairs Committee that conducted an 
investigation all of last year over alleged campaign finance abuses. 
The committee, at least amongst the majority of the committee, albeit 
mostly Republicans, said, yes, there should be an independent counsel 
appointed. We made that recommendation to the Attorney General. She has 
ignored that recommendation, and regrettably so.
  Mr. President, I might mention a few things. I said she is in charge 
of making sure the laws are enforced. I am looking at one, and I could 
spend hours going through the law and stating allegations that I think 
this administration was in violation of, that she has not enforced, or 
to give reason for the appointment of an independent counsel so there 
would not be this conflict of interest. I will mention a couple of 
laws.
  Title 18, section 607, United States Code, states in clear and 
unequivocal terms:

       It should be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive 
     any contribution in a Federal building.

  I could go on and mention the conflict of covered persons. Covered 
persons under this statute are the President, the Vice President. Vice 
President Gore has now admitted to making 52 fundraising calls from the 
White House. And the so-called coffees: There were 103 coffees in the 
White House attended by 1,241 people. They raised $26.4 million and I 
think are in direct violation of the statute. President Clinton hosted 
an average of two coffees per week during the reelection cycle; Vice 
President Gore attended over 100 coffees in 22 months before the 
election; 92 percent of the coffee attendees contributed to the DNC in 
the 1996 election cycle.
  I could mention the overnighters. President Clinton, in a handwritten 
note to a memo on January 5, 1995, told his staff he is ``ready to 
start the overnights right away'' and asked for a list of $100,000 and 
$50,000 contributors. Altogether, there were 178 guests who were listed 
as long-time friends, public officials or dignitaries, or Arkansas 
friends, who contributed over $5 million to the DNC. Overnight DNC 
donors paid an average of $44,000 per family to sleep in the Lincoln 
Bedroom. The White House was for sale, I think in clear violation of 
the law, Mr. President.
  I will mention a statement that Attorney General Reno made to the 
House Judiciary Committee on October 15, 1997. I ask unanimous consent 
that excerpts of Attorney General Reno's statement be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the excerpts were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Since they began their work, I have met with them regularly 
     to hear what they have found and to ask them questions. I 
     check on their progress several times a week, discussing with 
     them what evidence they have found and how they are 
     proceeding. Most important of all, I have told them from the 
     start that they are to contact me immediately if they ever 
     believe that the evidence and the law justified triggering 
     the Independent Counsel Statute. I and Director Freeh check 
     with them regularly to insure they have adequate resources.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       As I stated then, the fact that we don't trigger a 
     preliminary investigation under the Act does not mean we are 
     not investigating a matter. We are fully prepared to trigger 
     the Independent Counsel Act and pursue any evidence that a 
     covered person committed a crime, if any should arise in the 
     course of our investigation. We continue to investigate every 
     transaction brought to our attention. We will not close the 
     investigation of a matter without Director Freeh and I 
     signing off on its closure.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, keep in mind that was last year, when the 
campaign investigation was going, and going very strongly. She had this 
to say concerning the investigation. She was talking about the 
investigators:

       Since they've begun their work, I have met with them 
     regularly to hear what they found and ask them questions. I 
     check on their progress several times a week discussing with 
     them what evidence they have found and how they are 
     proceeding. Most important of all, I told them from the start 
     that they are to contact me immediately if they ever believe 
     that evidence and law justify triggering the independent 
     counsel statute. I and Director Freeh check with them 
     regularly to ensure they have adequate resources.

  Later in her statement:

       As I stated then, the fact that we don't trigger a 
     preliminary investigation under the act does not mean we are 
     not investigating the matter. We are fully prepared to 
     trigger the Independent Counsel Act and pursue any evidence 
     that a covered person committed a crime if any should arise 
     in the course of our investigation. We continue to 
     investigate every transaction brought to our attention. We 
     will not close the investigation of a matter without Director 
     Freeh and I signing on its closure.

  She made a commitment that basically the major decisions would be 
made by the Attorney General and the FBI Director, former Federal 
judge, Mr. Freeh. I mention that because evidently Mr. Freeh made a 
detailed report, evidently a 27-page report, to the Attorney General in 
November of 1997 calling for an independent counsel. I am not inserting 
that report in the Record. I am going to read a couple of excerpts that 
Senator Thompson made before the Judiciary Committee, where Attorney 
General Reno testified on July 15 of this year, where he outlined 
several things that were in Director Freeh's memo.
  I will be very quick and maybe I will insert several pages of this in 
the Record. This is Senator Thompson talking about Director Freeh's 
investigation. He pointed out that the FBI's

[[Page S9537]]

investigation has led them to the highest levels of the White House, 
including the Vice President and the President, and that the Department 
of Justice must look at the independent counsel statute. He pointed out 
there are two sections; one is a mandatory section where the Attorney 
General is required to appoint, and another one is a discretionary 
section. The ultimate conclusion by Mr. Freeh is that the statute 
should be triggered under both the mandatory and the discretionary 
provisions of the statute.
  I ask unanimous consent that the entire section of this dialog be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       [Mr. Thompson.] On Friday, June 19th Larry Parkinson, the 
     General Counsel of the FBI, presented to Senator Glenn and 
     myself an oral summary of a 27-page legal memorandum that was 
     written in November 1997 from Louis Freeh. You might recall 
     when Mr. Freeh and General Reno were testifying before the 
     House Committee on Governmental Operations, Mr. Freeh 
     declined to present the memo he had recommending the 
     independent counsel, but he agreed to give an oral briefing 
     to the chairman and ranking member of the committee. He did 
     the same thing with regard to our committee. I think that I 
     have a fair summary of what his position was on those matters 
     and I would like to lay that on the record and have some 
     discussion about it if we have time.
       Basically, Mr. Freeh's memo is in seven sections. In the 
     first section, he deals with the purpose of the independent 
     counsel statute and points that it was to ensure fairness and 
     impartiality in an administration's investigation of its own 
     top officials, and highlights several reasons for the 
     enactment of the statute. The top three listed were the 
     Department of Justice difficulty in investigating a high-
     level official; secondly, the difficulty in investigating a 
     superior. And, third, even the appearance of a conflict of 
     interest is dangerous.
       He pointed out that their investigation, the FBI's 
     investigation, had led them to the highest levels of the 
     White House, including the Vice President and the President, 
     and therefore the Department of Justice must look at the 
     independent counsel statute. He pointed out there are two 
     sections. One is a mandatory section where the Attorney 
     General is required to appoint, and another one is a 
     discretionary section.
       The ultimate conclusion by Mr. Freeh is that the statute 
     should be triggered under both the mandatory and the 
     discretionary provisions of the statute, and then he goes in 
     some detail to state why. He points out that there are 
     unprecedented legal issues. There has been a lot of 
     discussion as to whether or not soft money contributions that 
     are totally coordinated out of the White House were legal or 
     illegal, for example.
       The memorandum points out the legislative history. And, of 
     course, lest we forget, Director Freeh is a former Federal 
     judge as he opines on these matters. He points out the 
     congressional intent was that where there were 
     unprecedented legal issues or differences in legal opinion 
     that an independent counsel is to be sought. That was his 
     interpretation of the clear legislative history.
       He discussed in some detail Vice President Gore's telephone 
     solicitations, the President's telephone solicitations, the 
     need for the independent counsel in both cases. And it was 
     the Director's ultimate conclusion that it should be referred 
     to appointment of an independent counsel as part of a broader 
     scheme to circumvent campaign finance law under either the 
     mandatory or the discretionary provisions of the statute. He 
     held the same conclusion with regard to the White House 
     coffees, the overnights, and the other perks.
       He also says that with regard to soliciting contributions 
     from foreigners, nevertheless, there is an additional 
     question of whether DOJ should be resolving these issues. The 
     legislative history is such that the Department of Justice is 
     not to undertake an elaborate legal analysis when a covered 
     person is involved, a legal analysis with regard to the 
     questions of law that we mentioned before.
       Then he refers to the discretionary provision. After having 
     decided on all counts, on all instances of matters in 
     controversy, that it called for the activation of the 
     mandatory portion of the independent counsel law, he then 
     turned to the discretionary portion of the law. And I think 
     this is an accurate quotation from the briefing that we got, 
     quote, ``It is difficult to imagine a more compelling 
     situation for appointing an independent counsel,'' as he 
     discussed the reasons that caused him to reach that 
     conclusion.
       He said, for several reasons. He said, first, is the fact 
     that the Department of Justice investigating the President 
     and the Vice President. The independent counsel statute is 
     based on the fact that it is a conflict for the Attorney 
     General to investigate her superiors. Secondly, Director 
     Freeh said that the cumulative effect of all of the 
     fundraising-related investigations going on should activate 
     the discretionary provision of the statute.
       Thirdly, he said the Department of Justice is investigating 
     other persons in addition to covered persons who, because of 
     the nature of their relationship with the President and the 
     Vice President, give the appearance of a conflict of 
     interest. In other words, when someone who is being 
     investigated and in one case has already been indicted who 
     was in the White House 49 times, that although that person is 
     not covered, he is a close associate of covered people. And 
     if you are trying to get information from someone you have 
     just indicted, or you are in negotiations with regard to plea 
     bargaining or immunity or any of those other instances, how 
     can you do that effectively when the answers that he may give 
     may have to do with the covered person, who is the Attorney 
     General's superior?
       Fourth, the independent counsel statute arose from 
     Watergate and thus has a unique relationship to the campaign 
     finance laws. In other words, the Attorney General--according 
     to his reading of the legislative history of this, there is a 
     unique relationship between the independent counsel law and 
     campaign finance laws, which is, of course, what we are 
     dealing with.
       Lastly, the section provides factual information about in 
     comparison to the Attorney General's previous discretionary 
     appointments. In other words, there are many instances where 
     the Attorney General has activated or relied upon the 
     discretionary provision of the law. He discussed Filegate, 
     discussed Whitewater, discussed Mr. Nusbaum's situation.
       In Whitewater, the Attorney General invoked the 
     discretionary provisions because of a political conflict of 
     interest from McDougal and others who were close to the 
     President. Nusbaum was a former senior member of the White 
     House staff, although not a covered person, who also had a 
     close relationship with the President. It is consistent with 
     those precedents to treat this investigation as a 
     discretionary independent counsel matter as well.
       The Director also points out the fact that it is the FBI 
     and the DOJ's obligation to keep the President informed on 
     national security information while investigating those same 
     issues. And, also, as he says, simply the appearance or 
     public perception of a conflict can invoke the discretionary 
     clause. It is absolutely essential for the public to have 
     confidence in its investigators and this is consistent, of 
     course, with the Attorney General's confirmation testimony.
       Director Freeh also says that contrary to her testimony 
     before the Senate, Attorney General Reno replied to Senator 
     Hatch that she had to actual conflict instead of the 
     appearance of a conflict. Director Freeh says the 1994 
     Congress rejected a DOJ proposal that the Attorney General 
     would have a relevant conflict of interest only with a matter 
     rather than a person as the standard for invoking the 
     statute. And he concludes the Attorney General can consider 
     appearance as well as actual conflict that might weaken 
     public confidence.
       According to the memorandum, it makes no sense for 
     appearance to be relevant for covered persons, but not for 
     the discretionary provision, since conflict is presumed for 
     covered persons and appearance is more relevant to non-
     covered persons.
       Lastly, Director Freeh points out as a reason for invoking 
     the discretionary provision of the independent counsel law 
     that the Attorney General's chief investigator has concluded 
     that there is a political conflict of interest. This does not 
     change the fact that the Attorney General makes the final 
     decision, but in Director Freeh's view, it should be pursued 
     under the discretionary clause.
       So here we have a really remarkable and unprecedented 
     situation where you have been investigating matters 
     concerning covered people at the highest levels. You have 
     been investigating matters concerning people who are not 
     covered people, but are close associates of covered people 
     who have had very extensive visitations to the White House.
       You have, at best, a mixed interpretation of the law 
     concerning campaign finance. No one thought up until this 
     last Presidential election, for example, that a President or 
     a Presidential candidate could take public money, certify 
     that that is all he would spend, and then go get on the phone 
     and raise unprecedented amounts of soft money which he 
     coordinated out of the White House. No one thought they could 
     do that up until your interpretation, and now we are seeing, 
     in Ohio, I think both the Democratic and Republican Party are 
     in court saying there are no limitations anymore because of 
     this. Their position is even foreign money, under the 
     Attorney General's interpretation, cannot be regulated 
     because it is soft money and soft money is not regulated.
       In addition, you have had a troubled investigation from the 
     start in which you have made changes, I think, to the 
     benefit--now, Mr. LaBella, who came in, also recommends an 
     independent counsel, and now he is leaving. Now, you have the 
     Director of the FBI, who is the chief investigator, saying 
     from his investigation we should have an independent counsel. 
     And yet we don't have that acted upon by the Attorney 
     General.

  Mr. NICKLES. He discussed in detail Vice President Gore's telephone 
conversations, the President's telephone solicitations, the need for 
independent counsel in both cases.
  It is the Director's ultimate conclusion it should be referred to an 
appointment of an independent counsel as part of a broader scheme to 
circumvent campaign finance law under either the

[[Page S9538]]

mandatory or the discretionary provisions of the statute. He held the 
same conclusion with regard to White House coffees, the overnights, and 
other perks, and that would include Air Force One.
  He also talks about the scheme to evade the law. When the President 
agrees to take public funding of a Presidential campaign, he says: Here 
is how much money we are going to raise and spend. Clearly, the White 
House, and Mr. Harold Ickes and other people, tried to circumvent the 
law and say: We are going to raise lots and lots of money, the White 
House will do it, and we will basically get around these limits. 
Director Freeh obviously thinks that should be investigated and may 
well think it should be investigated for both parties. I am not making 
any aspersions. I am just saying that we should have an independent 
counsel.
  If Director Freeh has studied this as long as he has--he is the chief 
investigative officer of the country as head of the FBI--if it is his 
strong conclusion, with a 27-page memo, that we should have an 
independent counsel, then we should have an independent counsel. He 
gave that memo evidently in November of last year, and the Attorney 
General has yet to appoint an independent counsel.
  I could go on. I have already inserted most of this into the Record. 
I will skip and just make the comment that if you have the Director of 
the FBI--I think his concluding comment, and I will quote this from 
Senator Thompson's statement:

       It is difficult to imagine a more compelling situation for 
     appointing an independent counsel.

  That is from Director Freeh. That is not a partisan Republican. That 
is from a former Federal judge who is now Director of the FBI, who made 
that analysis after conducting a very extensive investigation. He says 
we need an independent counsel. I think the Attorney General should 
follow his advice.
  Now we have, evidently, the chief investigator that the Attorney 
General appointed in the Justice Department making the same 
recommendation. Again, I haven't read his memo. Evidently, he just 
issued a memo--this is prosecutor Charles La Bella. This is according 
to news reports. I will insert this in the Record. This is July 23, 
1998--recently--written by David Johnson. It says:

       Prosecutor Charles La Bella delivered a report to Reno last 
     Thursday as he prepared to return to San Diego this week to 
     take over as interim U.S. attorney. La Bella has marked his 
     department by challenging her to replace him with an outside 
     counsel.

  I will read one section:

       But he contends only that their fundraising activities 
     warrant outside investigation, and in the legal analysis La 
     Bella concluded that Reno misinterpreted the law, creating an 
     artificially high standard to avoid invoking the independent 
     counsel statute.

  It also goes on in the article to say that, last fall, La Bella urged 
her to seek appointment of an independent counsel to investigate 
fundraising telephone calls by President Clinton and Vice President 
Gore but she rejected that recommendation. In summary, La Bella 
concluded there was sufficient information to warrant appointment based 
on mandatory and discretionary provisions in the independent counsel 
statute, meaning he found enough specific information to justify 
outside investigation of high officials. He found that the Justice 
Department could not objectively investigate them on his own, the 
official said.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, July 23, 1998]

    Campaign Investigator Urges Reno to Name Independent Prosecutor

                          (By David Johnston)

       Washington.--After a 10-month inquiry, the departing chief 
     of the Justice Department's campaign finance unit has 
     concluded in a confidential report to Attorney General Janet 
     Reno that she has no alternative but to seek an independent 
     prosecutor to investigate political fund-raising abuses 
     during President Clinton's re-election campaign, government 
     officials said Wednesday.
       The prosecutor, Charles La Bella, delivered the report to 
     Reno last Thursday as he prepared to return to San Diego this 
     week to take over as interim U.S. attorney. In effect, after 
     being chosen by Reno to revive an investigation that she had 
     been criticized for neglecting, La Bella has marked his 
     departure by challenging her to replace him with an outside 
     counsel.
       La Bella's report does not suggest that prosecutors are 
     ready, or even close, to bringing a case against any top 
     Democrats or administration officials, but contends only that 
     their fund-raising activities warrant outside investigation. 
     And in a legal analysis, La Bella concluded that Reno had 
     misinterpreted the law creating an artificially high standard 
     to avoid invoking the independent counsel statute, officials 
     said.
       La Bella's conclusions, coming from a seasoned federal 
     prosecutor with full access to all grand jury evidence in the 
     case, represents a serious internal fracture within the 
     Justice Department. And the report seemed certain to provide 
     Republicans with considerable leverage to intensify their 
     demands that Reno step aside and let an outside prosecutor 
     take over.
       So far, she has refused to budge in her refusal to refer 
     the case to outside counsel, and Wednesday there was no 
     indication that Reno seemed likely to reconsider her 
     position. Last fall, La Bella had urged her to seek the 
     appointment of an independent prosecutor to investigate fund-
     raising telephone calls by Clinton and Vice President Al 
     Gore. But she rejected that recommendation.
       Reno has said she carefully weighed the facts and the law 
     before determining that the appointment of an independent 
     prosecutor was not justified under the independent counsel 
     law. She has defiantly blocked the appointment even in the 
     face of a recommendation last fall from FBI Director Louis 
     Freeh, who urged her to seek an independent counsel.
       Her unwillingness to seek the appointment has exasperated 
     Republicans in Congress who have accused the Justice 
     Department of a politically motivated effort to subvert the 
     independent counsel law to protect upper level Democratic 
     Party and White House officials from searching scrutiny.
       The report follows a tempestuous hearing last week, in 
     which she faced withering questions by senators on the 
     Judiciary Committee. Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., who led 
     Senate campaign finance hearings last year, confronted Reno 
     by quoting a confidential memo that Freeh sent to Reno in 
     November 1997. He quoted Freeh has concluded, ``It is 
     difficult to imagine a more compelling situation for 
     appointing an independent counsel.''
       Justice Department officials said Wednesday that Reno and 
     Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder had received the report 
     and were reviewing it. But they would not discuss specifics. 
     La Bella would not discuss the report.
       Labella's report has been guarded closely. He produced only 
     two copies, the officials said. He gave one copy to Reno and 
     sent another to the home of Freeh, an ally whose top agent on 
     the case, James Desarno, approved Labella's findings.
       Tuesday, Reno assembled several of her top advisers to 
     discuss the report, but they apparently reached no 
     conclusions about how or whether to respond. She has already 
     named a successor to La Bella. He is David Vicinanzo, a 
     prosecutor from New Hampshire.
       The report casts possible new light on La Bella's decision 
     on leaving his job as the top campaign finance prosecutor, 
     suggesting that he could be stepping down in the middle of 
     the inquiry because he believed that the case should not be 
     handled by the Justice Department but by an outside 
     prosecutor.
       So far, the campaign finance inquiry has produced only 
     several low-level fund-raisers. But there has been no 
     indication that the inquiry was likely to move up the chain 
     of command at the Democratic National Committee or the White 
     House.
       In his report, the officials said, La Bella concluded that 
     there was sufficient information to warrant the appointment 
     based on the mandatory and discretionary provisions of the 
     independent counsel statute, meaning that he found enough 
     specific information to justify an outside investigation of 
     high-level officials. Moreover, he found that the Justice 
     Department could not objectively investigate them on its own, 
     the officials said.
       Still, it was not clear whether La Bella recommended 
     whether an independent prosecutor should be named to 
     investigate specific officials although he assessed the 
     activities of several senior officials, including Clinton and 
     Gore and others like Harold Ickes, a former deputy chief of 
     staff, who played an important role in supervising the 
     campaign from the White House.
       The report also suggests that an independent prosecutor 
     should examine how the Democrats and Republicans used party 
     funds to pay a massive blitz of television ads that were 
     thinly veiled election messages for Clinton and Republican 
     nominee Bob Dole.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have the House Judiciary Committee, we 
have the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have the Governmental Affairs 
Committee all saying we should have an independent counsel. That was 
all done last year. We have the head of the FBI saying we should have 
an independent counsel, and we have the special prosecutor, brought in 
by Attorney General Reno herself to head up the investigation, saying 
we should have an independent counsel. They all came to the same 
conclusion that there was enough campaign abuse or alleged violations 
of the law that we should have

[[Page S9539]]

an independent counsel to avoid the conflict of interest to investigate 
this matter further.
  It is unanimous, with one exception--Attorney General Reno. In her 
comments, following Mr. La Bella's remarks, since that was made public, 
she says, ``Well, we want to discuss this with all of our attorneys. He 
was just one attorney.'' He was the lead attorney. He was the chief 
investigator. And Director Freeh is not just an attorney, he happens to 
be the Director of the FBI. And if he issued a 27-page report calling 
for an independent counsel, I think she should adhere to it.
  I am bothered by the fact that if we had the chief law enforcement 
officer of the country not enforcing the law, not listening to the 
recommendations of her chief investigator, Mr. La Bella, not following 
the recommendations of the Director of the FBI, then I do not think she 
is enforcing the law. And that bothers me.
  So, Mr. President, it is with some regret--I do not do this very 
often--but I think if Attorney General Reno does not appoint a special 
counsel under the independent counsel statute to investigate campaign 
abuses by this administration, I think she should resign. I do not 
think she is doing her job. I think she is involved in more of a 
coverup of the President's activities or the White House's activities 
than she is enforcing the law.
  I hope she will change her mind. I hope she will review the memo that 
Director Freeh and Mr. La Bella have given her and follow their advice. 
Those two individuals are not partisan Republicans. They are not the 
chairman of the Republican Judiciary Committee or the House Judiciary 
Committee or they are not Senator Thompson or other members on the 
Governmental Affairs Committee. They are appointees by this 
administration. I give them great credibility. I hope that she will 
follow their advice. Mr. President----
  Mr. SPECTER. Will my distinguished colleague----
  Mr. NICKLES. I am almost finished.
  Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that three editorials be 
printed in the Record, one of which is dated July 21, a New York Times 
editorial. The headline of it is ``Reno Flunks Law School.'' And just 
the last line says:

       Ms. Reno didn't get it. She comes not to expose political 
     corruption, but to bury it.

  There is also a New York Times editorial from July 23 that says--I 
will just read this one paragraph----

       The two people in the American Government who know most 
     about this case--the lead prosecutor and the top investigator 
     --are convinced that the trail of potentially illegal money 
     leads so clearly toward the White House that Ms. Reno cannot, 
     under Federal law, be allowed to supervise the investigation 
     of her own boss. When it comes to campaign law, this is the 
     most serious moment since Watergate.

  I ask consent that one additional editorial be printed in the Record. 
I will just read one paragraph. This is an editorial, dated July 27, 
from the Washington Times. It says:

       Like Mr. Freeh, Mr. La Bella has concluded that his 
     investigation has satisfied both the provisions of the 
     independent counsel law. Both have concluded that it is a 
     conflict of interest for Ms. Reno to investigate these 
     matters. Mr. La Bella also joined Mr. Freeh in concluding 
     that Ms. Reno--for that matter, Mr. Radek--have 
     misinterpreted the statute by establishing too high of a 
     standard for the implementation of the independent counsel 
     statute. FBI agent James Desarno, who was named to the task 
     force as the highest ranking agent at the time Mr. La Bella 
     was appointed, has also concurred with the recommendation for 
     the independent counsel.

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

                [From the New York Times, July 21, 1998]

                         Reno Flunks Law School

       By studying the transcript of last week's Senate Judiciary 
     Committee hearing, it is possible to reconstruct one of the 
     more remarkable internal documents of the Clinton 
     administration. That is the tightly reasoned, 27-page legal 
     memorandum in which Louis Freeh, the director of the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation, told Attorney General Janet Reno 
     that she was failing in her duty to appoint an independent 
     counsel to investigate President Clinton's fund-raising.
       Republicans (believe) Ms. Reno is allowing the Justice 
     Department's investigation of foreign contributions and 
     Chinese government meddling in the 1996 election to crumble.
       That accounts for Senator Orrin Hatch's by-the-numbers tone 
     in lecturing Ms. Reno last week. ``You have conflicts of 
     interest. There may have been crimes committed,'' he said. 
     ``And that's why the independent counsel statute was passed 
     to begin with, and that is to take it out of your hands, so 
     you don't have to be accused of conflict of interest.''
       Ms. Reno didn't get it. She comes not to expose political 
     corruption, but to bury it.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, July 23, 1998]

                          The Firestorm Cometh

       Charles La Bella, who has been leading the Justice 
     Department's campaign finance investigation, has now advised 
     Attorney General Janet Reno that under both the mandatory and 
     discretionary provisions of the Independent Counsel Act she 
     must appoint an outside prosecutor to take over his inquiry. 
     The other important figure of this investigation, Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation Director Louis Freeh, has already 
     recommended an independent counsel. Ms. Reno can give her 
     usual runaround about being hard-headed, but she cannot hide 
     from the meaning of this development.
       The two people in the American Government who know most 
     about this case--the lead prosecutor and top investigator--
     are convinced that the trail of potentially illegal money 
     leads so clearly toward the White House that Ms. Reno cannot, 
     under Federal law, be allowed to supervise the investigation 
     of her own boss. When it comes to campaign law, this is the 
     most serious moment since Watergate.
       These are not the judgments of rebel subordinates or hot-
     headed junior staff members. Mr. Freeh, a former Federal 
     judge, has been if anything too loyal to Ms. Reno during the 
     nine long months that she has ignored his advice. Mr. La 
     Bella was hand-picked by Ms. Reno on the basis of experience 
     and skill to run this investigation. Either she has to come 
     forward and make the impossible argument that they are 
     incompetent or bow to the law's requirements.
       Ms. Reno may grumble about leaks of supposedly confidential 
     advice. But the fact is that the American people need to know 
     that two top law enforcement officers believe the Attorney 
     General is derelict. Moreover, Mr. Freeh and Mr. La Bella are 
     right to separate themselves from Ms. Reno, because if her 
     attempt to protect Presidential fund-raising from 
     investigation continues, it will go down as a blot against 
     Justice every bit as enduring as J. Edgar Hoover's privacy 
     abuses. Firestorm is an overused word in Congress, but if Ms. 
     Reno does not make the appointment, the Republican Senate 
     leadership ought to ignite one--today.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Times, July 27, 1998]

                        Charles La Bella Speaks

       When Attorney General Janet Reno beseeched federal 
     prosecutor Charles La Bella last September to come to 
     Washington to rescue her department's clueless investigation 
     of campaign-finance abuses during the 1996 election, her 
     request was clearly an act of desperation.
       Rather than seek an independent counsel to replace her 
     department's demonstrably incompetent task force, Miss Reno 
     convinced Mr. La Bella to lend his considerable credibility 
     to the task force, which had been thoroughly politicized by 
     its leader, Lee Radek, chief of the Justice Department's 
     Public Integrity Section. By the time Mr. La Bella arrived, 
     the FBI agents assigned to the task force had been bitterly 
     complaining for months about the snail-like pace, believing 
     Mr. Radek was far more interested in controlling the 
     investigation than advancing it. Mr. Radek, of course, had 
     been intensely, and successfully, lobbying Miss Reno against 
     seeking an independent counsel.
       It didn't take Mr. La Bella long to conclude that Mr. 
     Radek's arguments against naming an independent counsel 
     amounted to ``pablum.'' Last November, both he and FBI 
     Director Louis B. Freeh advised Miss Reno to seek the 
     appointment of an independent counsel to investigate charges 
     that President Clinton and Vice President Gore had made 
     illegal fund-raising calls from the White House. In a 
     confidential 27-page legal memo to the attorney general, Mr. 
     Freeh concluded, ``It is difficult to imagine a more 
     compelling situation for the appointment of an independent 
     counsel,'' arguing that the investigation had satisfied both 
     the discretionary and the mandatory options governing such an 
     appointment. Siding yet again with Mr. Radek, Miss Reno 
     rejected the advice of Messrs. Freeh and La Bella last fall.
       Mr. La Bella is now returning to San Diego, where he will 
     become interim U.S. attorney, an appointment he received from 
     Miss Reno. On July 16, he filed his final report, and it was 
     revealed late last week that Mr. La Bella once again strongly 
     recommended that Miss Reno seek an independent counsel. Like 
     Mr. Freeh, Mr. La Bella has concluded that his investigation 
     has satisfied both the provisions of the independent-counsel 
     law. Both have concluded that it is a conflict of interest 
     for Miss Reno to investigate these matters. Mr. La Bella also 
     joined Mr. Freeh in concluding that Miss Reno and, for that 
     matter, Mr. Radek, have misinterpreted the statute by 
     establishing too high a standard for the implementation of 
     the independent-counsel statute. FBI agent James Desarno, who 
     was named to the task force as the highest-ranking agent at 
     the same time Mr. La Bella was appointed, has also concurred 
     with the recommendation for an independent counsel.
       Given that Mr. La Bella was Miss Reno's hand-picked 
     prosecutor to lead her department's faltering investigation, 
     his views

[[Page S9540]]

     ought to carry great weight, as, of course, should those of 
     FBI Director Freeh. But Miss Reno has already displayed her 
     trademark obstinacy and has failed to act in the 11 days she 
     has had the benefit of Mr. La Bella's latest recommendation.
       The Justice Department frequently reminds us that Miss Reno 
     has sought more independent counsels than any previous 
     attorney general. But it's worth recalling that she 
     steadfastly refused to name an independent counsel to 
     investigate Whitewater until after President Clinton 
     instructed her to do so. And Kenneth Starr was appointed by a 
     special three-judge panel, which rejected Miss Reno's 
     recommendation that a more pliable, less independent 
     prosecutor be reappointed.
       By seeking independent counsels to investigate matters far 
     less important than the massive campaign corruption that 
     subverted the democratic process, Miss Reno has conveniently 
     built a defense against having to seek an appointment that 
     actually threatens the president. It's a brilliant tactic, 
     but she cannot be allowed to get away with it.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator that his time 
has expired.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Chair. I now believe I have inserted in the 
Record all the subsequent statements that I have, including Attorney 
General Reno's statement before the Judiciary Committee, or at least 
excerpts of that.
  I thank my friend and colleague. I also thank my colleague from West 
Virginia for his patience and courtesy, that he always extends. I 
appreciate that.
  To my colleague from Pennsylvania, my time has expired.
  Mr. SPECTER. For a question--I know the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia is waiting. I will be just a moment or two.
  Mr. BYRD. I will be happy to wait.
  Mr. SPECTER. I appreciate that very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. My question, I say to Senator Nickles, relates to the 
consequences of a resignation. I commend you for the statement which 
you have just made. I have joined others in the call for an independent 
counsel. And, in fact, when questioning Attorney General Reno on July 
15 of this year--2 weeks ago on Wednesday--I asked her about specific 
cases and had an extensive chart which showed the justification for an 
independent counsel.
  Then, because of the limitation of time, I mentioned only two cases, 
one where a memorandum had come from the Democratic National Committee 
to the White House identifying five people who were identified as being 
good for $100,000 each. The President initialed it. The Democratic 
National Committee called for a coffee. It was held in the Oval Office. 
Within a few days thereafter, four of the five contributed $100,000--
specific and credible evidence. And the Attorney General responded she 
would get back to me, which I said surprised me because it was a well-
known matter.
  The second matter that I called to her attention--of only two because 
of the limitation of time--involved John Huang, where the photograph 
appeared and Carl Jackson, formerly of the NSC, National Security 
Staff, commented that Huang, in the presence of the President in the 
White House had said ``Elections are expensive, and we expect people to 
contribute.'' I have pressed for a mandamus act which I will not 
discuss now. I have on prior occasions.
  The question that I have for my distinguished colleague from 
Oklahoma--and I thank my colleague from West Virginia--is, What will be 
accomplished with a resignation? Is there any expectation that the 
President will appoint somebody who will be tougher on the campaign 
irregularities in which he is so deeply involved, at least by 
allegation? Wouldn't the better course be to move on the legal front, 
recognizing that it is a very tough case, candidly, an uphill fight--a 
long shot, in common parlance--contrasted with the resignation where we 
are going to have a lengthy delay before a nomination is made--
confirmation hearings--familiarity would be a matter of months--before 
a substitute attorney general would be in a position to respond to this 
issue about appointment of an independent counsel?
  Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate the question by my friend and colleague. As 
I stated in my statement, one, I hope--I prefaced, I said if she does 
not appoint, if she does not appoint an independent counsel, then I 
think she should resign. And it is my hope that she will follow the 
wisdom of Director Freeh and Mr. La Bella, follow their advice and 
appoint an independent counsel. I hope she will enforce the law.
  As my colleague from Pennsylvania is aware, I think the law is very 
clear. The one you mentioned with the coffees, the statute says: It 
shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive any contribution 
in a Federal building. The statute is pretty clear. It just has not 
been enforced.
  I appreciate your statement. I think if she resigned--whoever is 
acting--before any person would be confirmed by the Senate, we would 
try to have a very clear understanding that the law would be enforced.
  I would also mention--you mentioned John Huang. John Huang was in the 
White House 164 times. That is a lot of visits for a person who was 
primarily a fundraiser. I think clearly the law was abused; campaign 
abuses were very flagrant. And the law should be enforced.
  Hopefully, the Attorney General will take heed of the advice that the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, the investigative committee in the 
House, and as well as the FBI Director and her chief prosecutor, Mr. La 
Bella, have given, and follow that advice with the appointment of an 
independent counsel. I think it would help relieve her of a lot of 
criticism. And I think it would be the right thing to do. I think it 
would be enforcing the laws as the law is written.
  Mr. President, I again thank my colleague from West Virginia for his 
courtesy and also for his patience.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
West Virginia is recognized for 25 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________