[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 15, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7787-H7793]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     FAILURE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL TO APPOINT AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, for over 2 years now, despite 
overwhelming evidence, the Attorney General of the United States has 
refused to follow the law and the recommendations of her FBI director 
and the chief campaign finance prosecutor to appoint an independent 
counsel in the campaign finance scandal. She has politicized the office 
over which she has control, the Justice Department of the United 
States. Reports about disarray in this investigation at the Justice 
Department abound.
  After 2 years of this investigation, key players such as John Huang 
and James and Mochtar Riady, close friends of the President, have not 
been brought anywhere near to justice. White House and DNC officials 
are almost entirely off of the hook.
  The Attorney General and her political advisors have inherent 
conflicts in making a decision about an investigation involving their 
boss, the President, and his closest friends. These conflicts are 
obvious to everyone but the Attorney General and the political 
appointees by the President made by the President at the Justice 
Department.
  Last December, last December, we learned that FBI director Louie 
Freeh had recommended an independent counsel for the campaign finance 
investigation. He wrote that there could not be a more compelling case, 
there could not be a more compelling case for an independent counsel.
  The Attorney General ignored his compelling and sound advice. Then 
the investigation continued to limp along with the Attorney General 
failing to focus on any of the key White House and DNC officials or 
even John Huang, the individual who solicited millions in illegal 
foreign money after being personally placed at the DNC, the Democratic 
National Committee, by Bill Clinton.
  In fact, the core of the investigation should be focused on all of 
the foreign money that flowed into the DNC conference from around the 
world. Illegal campaign contributions from Macao, China, Taiwan, Egypt, 
Indonesia, and South America.
  Yet the numerous 90-day reviews continually ignore this big picture 
and focus on isolated matters such as the Vice President's phone calls. 
We clearly had cause for concern even before the LaBella memo became 
known to the public.
  The Attorney General before our committee said that, within 30 days, 
she would make a decision on an independent counsel. The 30 days have 
long past, even though our committee passed a contempt of Congress 
citation against the Attorney General. Thirty days have long since 
past. She has not appointed an independent counsel. Instead, she has 
extended by 90 days investigations into Mr. Ickes and the Vice 
President.
  In July of this year, we learned that the chief prosecutor, Mr. 
Charles LaBella, who was appointed by the Attorney General, also 
recommended an independent counsel. He provided the Attorney General 
with a detailed 94-page memo outlining the specific information he had 
compiled which he informed her mandated by law, mandated the 
appointment of an independent counsel under the law. Again, the 
Attorney General ignored his advice. This is the man she personally 
appointed to head the investigation.
  At that point, in late July, the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight subpoenaed both the Freeh and LaBella memoranda in order to 
fully access the sound legal arguments which the Attorney General was 
rejecting. The Attorney General refused to provide the memos to the 
Congress. She refused to provide any legal rationale for her refusal.
  On August 6, 1998, the committee held the Attorney General in 
contempt of Congress for failure to comply with a valid congressional 
subpoena. The committee still has not received the memos.
  Earlier this month, we did have an opportunity to read through a 
redacted copy. That is where they cross out anything that is related to 
the Grand Jury investigation. We were able to read through a redacted 
version of the memorandum and meet with the Attorney General about this 
important document.
  The Attorney General's claims that this redacted version of the 
LaBella memo would provide a road map to the investigation is simply 
not true. I read it. There is nothing of a road map to anything in 
there except the decisions made by the Attorney General which appear to 
be protecting the President and the Vice President of the United 
States.
  I will not go into the content of the LaBella memo. The memo does 
confirm, as I said, our worst fears, that the Attorney General of the 
United States, the one who is supposed to be the chief administrator of 
justice in this country, is clearly applying a different standard of 
law enforcement when it comes to the President and the Vice President 
than she does to any other American citizen. There is truly a dual 
standard, one for everybody except the President and the Vice President 
of the United States.
  The Attorney General has taken what is obviously the White House 
position that the President is above the law in a way that no other 
citizen in this country can expect. There is something extremely wrong 
with the way that the Reno Justice Department dispenses justice, if you 
want to call it that. It is unseemly to have an Attorney General 
putting partisan interest above justice.
  As the New York Times observed last December, ``Every decision she 
has made and comment she has offered has minimized the offenses and 
excused the conduct of the White House and the Democratic Party. The 
person who is supposed to be the Nation's chief prosecutor, ever alert 
for the signs of infraction, sounds instead like a technicality hunting 
defense lawyer.'' This is a quote right out of the New York Times.
  Indeed, when we met with the Attorney General regarding the LaBella 
memorandum, she exhibited this defense lawyer type of mentality or 
behavior. She refused to allow Mr. LaBella to explain his memo. And 
even though the public integrity chief Lee Radek, whose illogical views 
she has adopted as her own, was present at the meeting, the Attorney 
General refused to allow these individuals to speak for themselves and 
would not let them describe their reasons why they took the positions 
that they did.
  I mean they were both sitting right there. I asked Mr. LaBella 
questions, and I asked Mr. Radek questions, and the Attorney General 
would not let them answer for themselves.
  Mr. Radek, it should be noted, told the New York Times that he 
considers the independent counsel statute an insult and a knife in the 
back to top Justice Department officials. It is clear that Mr. Radek 
will continue to recommend that the Attorney General not follow a law 
which he does not like. What is amazing is that the Attorney General 
believes she can pick and choose what laws she wants to follow, even 
though the Congress of the United States has passed it.
  Janet Reno did not always hold this position. When she first became 
Attorney General, she testified to the following regarding the 
independent counsel statute, and I quote the Attorney General directly: 
``The reason that I support the concept of an independent counsel is 
that there is an inherent conflict whenever senior Executive Branch 
officials are to be investigated by the Department of Justice and its 
appointed head.'' The Attorney General.

[[Page H7788]]

  The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President, so she 
is convicted by her own statement. There should be an independent 
counsel without any political influence being exerted on them 
whatsoever to investigate the President and Vice President.
  It has been stated by the FBI director Louis Freeh; the chief 
investigator of this whole scandal, Mr. LaBella; Mr. DeSarno, the head 
of the FBI task force investigating it; and her own words. Yet, she 
still will not appoint an independent counsel.
  Certainly the President has to be pleased with the Attorney General's 
failure to follow the recommendations of the FBI director and the chief 
prosecutor to appoint an independent counsel to investigate the 
President's conduct in campaign finance and fund-raising.
  This refusal places Janet Reno as the first Attorney General since 
President Nixon's Attorney General John Mitchell to investigate the 
President who appointed her. Every Attorney General since John Mitchell 
has turned over such political investigations to someone outside of the 
Justice Department if for no other reason than to eliminate the 
appearance of impropriety.
  Quite simply, the Attorney General is derelict in her duties to 
enforce the laws equally. She is giving the President special 
dispensations that no other citizen could hope to enjoy.
  The recent 90-day reviews are merely a smoke screen to avoid 
following the advice she has been given for 2 years to appoint an 
independent counsel for the entire campaign finance matter. It is just 
another delaying tactic to get us past the election.
  It is the people in the public integrity section of the Justice 
Department who has so strongly opposed an independent counsel and have 
fought the appointment of one from the beginning of the campaign 
finance scandal and who are conducting these so-called 90-day reviews.
  All these latest 90-day reviews accomplish is to push these decisions 
past the November elections into next January, another partisan act 
which demonstrates that the Attorney General continues to protect the 
President time and again during this investigation.
  The American people have a right to know that the Attorney General is 
not following the law. The FBI director and the chief prosecutor in 
this investigation have said as much in their memos to her concluding 
that an independent counsel is necessary under the mandatory section of 
the independent counsel statute.
  But it is not only their view. It is not only their view. Listen to 
others who have recognized the attorney as wrong in her interpretation 
of the law in this matter. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat 
in the other body said recently, ``Two years ago, we should have had an 
independent counsel to inquire into the Chinese attack on our political 
system through political contributions in the 1996 campaign. How she,'' 
the Attorney General of the United States, Janet Reno, ``cannot have 
done that, I do not know.'' That is a condemnation from the President's 
own party of the Attorney General.
  A person who is not generally a friend of mine and one who disagrees 
with me quite frequently, columnist Al Hunt, not someone that I usually 
quote either, said, ``The Attorney General is getting terrible advice 
from Lee Radek from the public integrity section over there at Justice 
who despises independent counsels.''
  But Charles LaBella's position here is even more compelling than FBI 
Director Louie Freeh who came to the same conclusion earlier, about 8 
months earlier. If Janet Reno does not name an independent counsel, her 
credibility as Attorney General is destroyed.
  This is from a fellow who normally is very supportive of the 
administration. Janet Reno's former deputy observed last year, and this 
is her deputy, ``I served in seven administrations,'' he said ``and I 
have never seen the Justice Department so dominated in the policy realm 
by the White House. An Attorney General who is dominated by the White 
House in protecting the President does a disservice to the justice 
system.''
  Our committee continues to seek these memos because of the need to 
inform the American people of the threats to our judicial system by an 
administration which thinks that it is above the law. No one in this 
country should be above the law. The law as was said earlier by one of 
my colleagues from Texas should be administered equally, whether it is 
the lowest person in the United States or the person occupying the 
highest office, the President of the United States. The law should be 
applied equally.
  Unfortunately, this politicized Justice Department has one standard 
for everybody except the President and Vice President; and that is not 
only unseemly, I believe it is unlawful.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield first to my colleague, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Horn), a valued member of our committee.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for reviewing this matter 
and bringing it up. I think all of us have sat through the hours of 
testimony of Mr. Freeh and Mr. LaBella. We are really shocked by the 
treatment of two great public servants who had the courage to put their 
words in writing to advise the Attorney General. They wanted to go over 
their memoranda with her, but the letters just sat there. Until 
recently, they never had an opportunity to go over their memoranda with 
her.
  One of our Members [Mr. Souder] asked Mr. LaBella how much new 
information he had in his memo. Since we could not see the memos, that 
was the whole issue--what information was still hidden--and that was 
why a majority voted for contempt, which was agreed in the committee. 
LaBella replied that the public and we probably only know 1 percent of 
what was in that memo.
  Now that is shocking. That means the American people, elected 
legislators, and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight have 
been blocked from knowing 99 percent of what is behind the tremendous 
misuse of the law and of the basic campaign finance laws in the 1996 
presidential campaign.
  Denying us information and truth had been the typical pattern within 
the administration but it was the first time I had seen the Attorney 
General engage in that behavior. Such has been the typical pattern 
since 1993. For those of us who investigated Travelgate, and Filegate, 
in Government Reform and Oversight and those who investigated 
Whitewater on Banking and Financial Services were used to the attitude: 
The attitude was ``Don't tell them a thing.''

                              {time}  2015

  ``Stiff them,'' was the word. And that they did and they were very 
successful.
  When we were in the minority in 1993, 1994, Chairman Bill Clinger of 
this committee, the predecessor to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton) had an instinct, and he was absolutely right, on that White 
House travel office. Of course, the administration made a major mistake 
when it picked on that office. The media knew that the Travel staff 
were good efficient and effective people. They had arranged their 
trips. Some of the employees were hired during the Kennedy 
administration.
  But the idea was when we sent information requests to the White House 
or a department, they just never replied. And yet the law authorizes 
the minority on our committee, when seven or eight sign such a request, 
the executive branch is supposed to provide the answers.
  Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman has described tonight is a very sad 
commentary. I have had very great respect for the Attorney General. I 
knew of her before she came to Washington. She has done a lot of good 
things. But this situation has simply been mishandled from the 
beginning. The Director of the FBI is a former judge, and Mr. LaBella, 
one of the best prosecutors in the United States, who headed the 
campaign task force within the Department of Justice. Both are men of 
integrity. In fact, Mr. LaBella certainly had the confidence of the 
Attorney General. She was moving him to San Diego to be United States 
Attorney. That seems to be off now.
  But when Mr. LaBella appeared before us, as did Mr. Freeh, they were 
speaking from the heart. They were very careful as to what they said. 
But let me just note another President, or

[[Page H7789]]

both Presidents, we can talk about President Clinton's views on the 
independent counsel statute and this is what he said on June 30, 1994:

       Regrettably, this statute was permitted to lapse when its 
     reauthorization became mired in a partisan dispute in the 
     Congress. Opponents called it a tool of partisan attack 
     against Republican Presidents and a waste of taxpayer funds. 
     It was neither. In fact, the Independent Counsel statute has 
     been in the past and is today a force for Government 
     integrity and public confidence.''

  The President was right when he said that. Whether they were 
Republicans criticizing reauthorization or Democrats, the fact is we 
reauthorized it. And we reauthorized it for a very good reason. No 
matter how able and honest one is, there might well be a conflict of 
interest in actuality and a conflict of interest in perception. That is 
why Congress reauthorized the statute.
  The reason that is important is that when one is an appointee of the 
President of the United States, as the Attorney General is an 
appointee, confirmed by the Senate, the fact is she is investigating 
the boss. That is not a very credible situation. That is why Congress 
enacted the independent counsel statute. That act was approved by the 
President. And the President was right when he signed it. He probably 
does not have too much respect for it now, in the sense that there are 
a number of independent counsels who have sent some people to jail. 
Others have been fined. These independent counsels have generally been 
uncovering the corruption that has occurred in various parts of the 
executive branch.
  In his testimony before us FBI Director Freeh noted that the 
appointment of an independent counsel was based on both sections of the 
law. There is a mandatory section and there is a discretionary section. 
The first basis for his recommendation was the mandatory section: that 
an independent counsel must be appointed when there is specific 
information from a credible source that the President, Vice President, 
or other high-ranking officials may have violated a Federal criminal 
law.
  The second basis for his recommendation was the discretionary or 
conflict of interest section. This is what I have been discussing. The 
Attorney General may appoint an independent counsel when she determines 
that having the Justice Department investigate the matter might result 
in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest.
  Let me cite the views of another President, a President for whom I 
have great respect. He has showed in retirement many fine qualities and 
he is a highly ethical man. That is former President Jimmy Carter, who 
said October 20, 1997, [The campaign fund-raising scandal is] ``the 
most embarrassing and debilitating thing I have ever seen evolve in the 
political structure in our country.'' [An independent counsel could] 
``diffuse this big issue . . . get it out of the front pages and get 
out of these everyday new, minor revelations that are having such a 
devastating effect.''
  Now, it is still alive and we still do not know the truth in it. The 
Thompson Committee on Governmental Affairs in the Senate dealt with 
this. We dealt with it in the House. And the witnesses who would come 
before us just stared at us and when we asked them: ``Did you do this? 
Did you know this?'' They would answer ``Who me?'' Or, ``Gee, I don't 
know. I don't recollect what that was.''
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) might bring us 
up to date on the number of witnesses we have sought and the number who 
have taken the Fifth Amendment, which is their right under the 
Constitution to not incriminate themselves, and how many have fled the 
country. Last fall when we held some of these hearings, it was 65. I 
believe it is over 100 now. Is that correct?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. It is now 116 people have taken the Fifth 
Amendment or fled the country, 116.
  Mr. HORN. Think of it. Mr. Speaker, 116 people took the Fifth 
Amendment and/or fled the country. Some of these were American 
citizens. Some of these were not. But the fact is, Congress has been 
denied getting the facts. When the administration has the facts, they 
are not giving them to us. That is why these two memos written by two 
men of very high integrity are important for this body to review and 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight to review in 
particular.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California. And I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Davis), my colleague and another valued member of the committee.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, these are difficult times for 
this country and I think that political leaders of all stripes should 
take pains to step above partisanship and move into the realms where 
the facts can be judged by the American people and the proper 
investigative authorities.
  What concerns me the most in this particular case is that we have 
really the two only nonpolitical figures that have looked at this, Mr. 
LaBella, who is the head of their campaign task force, a professional, 
and Louis Freeh, the President's appointee as head of the FBI, who have 
taken a look at this objectively and both came to the irrevocable 
conclusion that the mandatory parts of the statute that would trigger 
an independent counsel have been met, and that the only option that the 
Attorney General had would be to appoint an independent counsel.
  We are frustrated here at the congressional level trying to get all 
the facts. The Thompson committee was frustrated in the Senate. But 116 
witnesses who have fled the country or taken the fifth amendment, and 
we do not have the means to go out after them. The Justice Department, 
in many cases, would. They would be able to grant immunity and be able 
to reach out. But they have so far been unable or willing to do that in 
an appropriate fashion. That is of concern to me.

  The most important thing I noted when Mr. LaBella and Mr. Freeh came 
before our committee, both of them were careful to guard the Attorney 
General's prerogatives. I think in that way they were good servants and 
good underlings, taking their appropriate place before the committee 
and recognizing the hierarchy they had to report to.
  But these memos have been examined for days by Justice Department 
officials and neither one of these have been called in at this point to 
give their point of view. Instead, the Attorney General had called upon 
the politicians, the political appointees to come in try to poke holes 
in their argument. It looks almost as if they were looking at a way 
they would not to have appoint an independent counsel. They could stiff 
Congress and this thing would go away.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear now with everything else 
happening that is not going to wash with the editorial boards across 
this country. It is not going to wash with the American people. And it 
is certainly not going to wash here in Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana has had an opportunity to 
review some of these redacted copies of the memorandum, and I 
understand that some of the excuses they were giving or some of the 
reasons that were given by the Attorney General for not releasing that 
was that it was going to be a road map to other prosecutions and so on, 
and that the gentleman just does not think that lies at this point. Is 
that correct?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Yes, and I am happy that the gentleman from 
Virginia brought that up. The Attorney General said before our 
committee that she was afraid that if they even gave us a redacted copy 
where they crossed out certain grand jury material, that this would 
still lead to people that they may want to prosecute or question and it 
might impede their investigation. I read that, and I am not at 
liberty----
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I would not ask the gentleman to divulge that 
conversation.
  Mr. BURTON. Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the information in the memo, 
but after having read it, along with some of our legal staff on the 
committee, there is nothing in there that would lead to anybody other 
than the Attorney General's position of not appointing an independent 
counsel. In fact, I think that some of the remarks that are made by Mr. 
LaBella come close to condemnation of the Attorney General for not 
acting on the mandatory section of the statute.
  So, that is the only thing that I found in the memo that she could be 
concerned about. That is why I believe it should be made available to 
every

[[Page H7790]]

Member of Congress and to the American people.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue 
to yield, it seems that we have here a man of high integrity in Mr. 
LaBella, a thorough professional prosecutor who took a look at this and 
expressed his frustration in a memo of over 100 pages in length and 
containing 55 exhibits that really reaches only one conclusion. It is 
in no way inconclusive or gives policy options.
  We have the head of the FBI, another political appointee but someone 
who I think has the respect and the independence that we would expect 
from the Nation's top law enforcement officer, making the same strong 
recommendation; really looking at no other options but that the 
mandatory sections of the statute are triggered. And we have not heard 
a peep from the Attorney General or anyone else as to why they take 
issue with this and an independent prosecutor cannot be appointed.
  That is the way it ought to go. It ought to be away from politics. It 
ought to be away from the floor of the House, away from the partisan 
structure that we have going into the November elections. It ought to 
be in the hands of the professionals and let the chips fall where they 
may, Republicans, Democrats, whatever. That is what ought to happen. I 
feel from the bottom of my heart, that is the right answer here.
  Yet, we are consistently being stonewalled and we are being blocked 
in every way possible. And it seems to be done by the political 
appointees, because the professionals have reached their conclusions. 
Would the gentleman agree with me on that?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Yes, I would. And I would like to add that the 
Attorney General has appointed independent counsels for some of the 
periphery of this administration, but whenever it gets close to the 
Oval Office or people close to the Oval Office, there is a reluctance 
to go ahead and appoint an independent counsel.
  Instead of doing this piecemeal, as has been the case by the Justice 
Department, there should be one independent counsel to look at the 
whole campaign finance scandal, the money that has come from all over 
the world illegally.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. That would include Republicans and Democrats, 
whatever.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Yes, and we have investigated Republicans as 
well as Democrats. But we need an independent counsel who is not 
beholden to anybody to get to the bottom of this whole thing.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I have tremendous respect for the 
Attorney General and her career. She was a career prosecutor and I know 
she is under tremendous pressure, it appears to me, right now from the 
hierarchy in the administration.
  But I hope if she reviews this quickly, number one, if she disagrees 
with the professionals in her own agency as to why this should not move 
forward, release that information to the public so she can explain why 
and show the report that we have paid for that basically would indicate 
otherwise; or if she would rise and have the courage to do the right 
thing, take this out of the politics and put it in the hands of 
professionals where it belongs. Not for partisan purposes, but I think 
in some cases for national security purposes.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Burton) 
and others for bringing this to our attention this evening.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis). He is, as I said, a valued member of the 
committee and he does a heck of a job for his constituents.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I join in the accolades for the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), 
members of the committee who care very deeply about the American public 
getting to the bottom of the truth of this matter.
  Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Indiana knows, over one month ago 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, of which I am also a 
member, voted to hold the Attorney General of the United States, Janet 
Reno, in contempt for failing to produce two documents to Congress. We 
are now faced with the decision of whether the entire House of 
Representatives should vote to hold her in contempt. This would be the 
first time Congress would use its contempt powers against an Attorney 
General, and we are well aware of the gravity of this matter.
  Our decision to subpoena the Attorney General was not made lightly. 
It was the result of a great deal of serious reflection. But members of 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and many others both 
inside and outside the halls of Congress, have serious concerns about 
the way the campaign finance probe has been conducted at the U.S. 
Department of Justice. What I would like to do is to discuss some of 
these problems that we have seen.
  Statements by senior Department of Justice officials that the 
independent counsel statute has not been applied consistently.
  Statements by senior Department of Justice officials that the White 
House staff have been treated more leniently than other citizens, and 
press accounts that some may have not been investigated because of who 
they are.
  Public accounts that senior political officials have weighed in 
against pursuing prosecution of campaign finance figures, even though 
the law supports prosecution.

                              {time}  2030

  Indications that the Department of Justice has not pursued evidence 
vigorously.
  Needless delays by the Attorney General that will push the start of 
investigations into 1999, a full 3 years after allegations of 
wrongdoing were made and known.
  Lee Radek, a senior adviser to the Attorney General, gave an unfair 
advantage to the defense attorney of an important Democratic 
contributor. When prosecutors, who had evidence of wrongdoing, called 
Mr. Radek, he refused to take the call.
  Complete failure by the Department to follow any evidence, speak to 
any witnesses, or subpoena any documents in some matters that may 
indicate improper impropriety by the Democrat National Committee and 
leading Democrat contributors.
  The failure to maintain continuity in the supervision of the 
Department of Justice investigations. There have been three task force 
supervisors in 1 year, and given that, they have all had their own 
advisers.
  A consistent siding with the White House in its failing and sometimes 
frivolous claims of privilege on a variety of matters.
  A failure to recognize that the Attorney General has conflicting 
legal duties: To keep the President informed of information relevant to 
national security, and keep information relevant to campaign finance 
investigation from people under investigation, a category that includes 
the President of the United States.
  Tolerance of top advisers belittling the laws that they are 
constitutionally bound to uphold. For example, Lee Radek, who was 
discussed earlier, told The New York Times: ``Institutionally, the 
Independent Counsel Statute is an insult.''
  Further, providing misleading information about who is covered by the 
Independent Counsel Statute and who is not covered. One letter provided 
to the committee seems to indicate that two of the principals of the 
Clinton-Gore 1996 campaign are not covered by the statute, and the 
clear language of the statute indicates that there is no doubt that 
these officials are covered.
  Further, providing false information to the public to make 
congressional demands seem unreasonable. The Attorney General has 
maintained that Congress has never before asked for information on an 
ongoing criminal investigation, and this is clearly not the case.
  Further, repeated leaks of information that are protected by Grand 
Jury secrecy and, I might add, leaks that were made for their own 
political benefit.
  Further, repeated attempts to answer requests made by Congress. I 
repeat: Repeated failure to answer requests made by Congress. For 
example, 1 month ago our committee asked the Attorney General for 
permission to speak with the assistant United States attorney most 
familiar with a case known as the Intriago case, and she has failed to 
respond to our request.

[[Page H7791]]

  Further, coordination between the Department of Justice and the 
minority on this committee are being done for political benefit.
  Some of these examples, taken by themselves, would be matters of 
grave concern. Put together, they indicate that there is something very 
wrong over at the Department of Justice. The Attorney General is not 
applying the law correctly. Her own advisers have been telling her 
this, yet she continues to oversee an investigation of the President of 
the United States, who appointed her.
  In November of 1977, FBI director Louis Freeh prepared a lengthy 
memorandum on the Department of Justice campaign finance investigation. 
Director Freeh, former Federal Judge Freeh, who had been advising the 
Attorney General to appoint an independent counsel since late 1996, 
concluded that according to the Independent Counsel Statute, 28 USC 
section 591, the Attorney General was required by both the mandatory 
and the discretionary provisions of that law to appoint an independent 
counsel.
  My colleagues will also see that I have on this side information that 
contains other testimony that Director Freeh has given.
  This view was shared by the most senior FBI investigator on the 
investigation, Mr. James DeSarno.
  On July 23, 1998, The New York Times reported that the departing lead 
prosecutor on the campaign finance task force, Charles La Bella, had 
prepared a 100-page memorandum reviewing the facts gathered during the 
campaign finance investigation. According to press reports, Mr. La 
Bella also found that the mandatory and discretionary portions of the 
independent counsel law required the appointment of an independent 
counsel. Thus, both Director Freeh and task force head La Bella have 
repeatedly found specific evidence from a credible source that required 
the appointment of an independent counsel.
  We subpoenaed Director Freeh and Mr. La Bella's memoranda because we 
believe it is clear that something is seriously wrong. The Attorney 
General was asked last Thursday, and I quote, ``Do you still have 
confidence in the leadership of President Clinton for both the 
administration and our country?'' This is what she said, and I quote 
the Attorney General, ``I certainly do.'' And then she said, ``He has a 
sense of what needs to be done. He is doing it.''
  Well, I, for one, have a problem with what the Attorney General has 
said for several reasons. The independent counsel, whose staff includes 
the Department of Justice lawyers and FBI investigators who are charged 
with enforcing the laws of this country, have recently provided 
Congress with a referral that says the President of the United States 
committed perjury in a Federal lawsuit; that he lied to a Federal Grand 
Jury; that he obstructed justice; and that his actions have been 
inconsistent with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully 
execute the laws of this country.
  The President has responded by having his private lawyers and 
government lawyers on the government payroll go out and trash the 
independent counsel. He has had them go out and make the most absurd 
legal arguments I believe that I have ever heard. It is so bad that 
yesterday two top Democrats in the House and the Senate made a public 
plea for the President to stop the legal obfuscation. And yet the 
Attorney General, who is in charge of upholding and protecting the law, 
blithely goes before the American people and tells us that the 
President has a sense of what needs to be done and he is doing it.
  Remember, the Attorney General has signed off on all the things that 
the independent counsel has done; all of these investigations now for 3 
years. It seems, however, that either she does not care about the 
independent counsel's evidence or she has already rejected the findings 
of the independent counsel that the President is acting against the 
principle that everyone is entitled to a fair trial; that he has sent 
his lawyers out to say that it really does not matter if one lies in 
these courts. These appear to be of no importance to the Attorney 
General.
  It seems to me that the President has been attacking the rule of law; 
that he has used and continues to use the most powerful office in the 
world and to say that one does not need to tell the truth, especially 
sitting in front of a Federal judge in the oval office. It just does 
not seem right to me.

  It seems to me that the Attorney General should care about this 
matter. She should care deeply. And that is what her job is all about: 
Protecting the rule of law. And she is certainly not doing so in the 
campaign finance investigation, where she keeps giving the President a 
break.
  The Attorney General's words speak volumes, I believe, about her own 
beliefs, but also they tell us one very important thing: She has a 
fatal conflict when it comes to investigating the President. This has 
not been a mystery. If she is willing to side with him before she has 
even seen the evidence in the Lewinsky matter, how can we possibly 
expect her to do the right thing when it comes to campaign finance 
investigation?
  For 2 years she has been ignoring what should have been clear to even 
the most junior lawyers on her staff. The appearance of conflict in the 
campaign finance investigation is devastating, and it does great harm 
to the Department of Justice and to the rule of law.
  But making a mistake does not rise to the level of misconduct. If 
that is all that we were here to talk about today, and I do not think 
it would be the only discussion that we would have, I think that we 
would have voted for contempt when she failed to turn over the Freeh 
and La Bella memoranda. Let us focus on some of the issues that have 
led to my conclusion that something is wrong at the Department of 
Justice.
  First. The Intriago case.
  This committee held hearings and was provided documentary evidence 
that major Democratic National Committee figure Charles Intriago had 
advised one of his clients how to break U.S. law and give money 
illegally. There was testimony that someone, and the inference was that 
this someone was highly placed in Democratic fundraising circles, was 
giving Intriago advice about where to direct illegal money.
  What happened in this case? It was pulled from one of the U.S. 
Attorney's offices by Lee Radek, one of the Attorney General's 
advisers, and the statute of limitations was about to expire. The 
appearance of impropriety is stunning. We asked the Attorney General if 
we could talk to the lawyer who was preparing the case before it was 
killed in Washington. We asked over 1 month ago, and the Attorney 
General has not even gotten around to fulfilling our request.
  She is behaving like a defense attorney trying to run out the clock.
  Another thing about this case. The adviser who killed this case for 
the Attorney General would not even take the phone calls of the New 
York State prosecutors who uncovered the evidence. In our hearing, 
however, we learned that he did take at least one call from a defense 
attorney.
  How can we believe that the Attorney General's protestations that she 
has left no stone unturned when the evidence shows that there are 
boulders right under her nose and her advisers are making sure they are 
not disturbed.
  Another investigation this committee has been conducting involves an 
elaborate scheme by the Democratic National Committee to break a State 
law in Kansas. Individuals were given money by a Democratic National 
Committee organization and told to act as conduits to get the money to 
another organization. Let me read from a document obtained by this 
committee, and I quote.
  ``The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, in an effort to 
support State Senate candidates, the Democrat party, and their own 
candidates will contribute $1,000 to each State Senate campaign our 
office designates. You may keep $200, but then must turn around and 
contribute $800 to the Senate Victory Fund.''
  Instructions on how to make conduit contributions does not get much 
clearer than this. If it had not been illegal, the Democratic 
Senatorial Campaign Committee would have given the $200 to the 
candidate and sent the $800 to the place where they wanted the money to 
go. But they could not do that, so they used decent men and women from 
their own party to act as straw donors.
  This is direct evidence of a plan to use conduits to get money to a 
third

[[Page H7792]]

party to help the Democratic National Committee candidates in the 1996 
Kansas election. Overall, a third of a million dollars was contributed 
to Kansas, where the State law limits the contribution from a national 
party to $25,000.
  One would think that this would attract the Attorney General's 
attention, but public accounts from Kansas indicate that the Department 
of Justice has made no effort to investigate this scheme. Again, as the 
Attorney General talks of leaving no stone unturned, certainly we are 
not being kidded. Far from being a zealous investigator, it appears 
that she is providing cover for those who broke the United States laws.
  The Intriago investigation and the Kansas conduit contributions are 
two major examples that go right to the Democratic National Committee. 
Both involve decisions by people who had to know that they were 
breaking the law. And in both cases the Attorney General of the United 
States has failed to conduct the necessary investigation.

                              {time}  2045

  I think we would not be doing our jobs if we did not make an attempt 
to find out what is going on over at the Department of Justice. If the 
Attorney General is going to condone the President's conduct in the 
Monica Lewinsky matter before she has ever seen the evidence, how can 
we possibly have her confidence today?
  Today I call on the Attorney General to release this non-6(e) 
material from the Freeh and LaBella memorandum.


                Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman will suspend for 
just a moment. The Chair must remind Members to avoid all personal 
references to the President.
  The gentleman from Texas may proceed.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I have done anything in 
that regard, and I apologize for using the President's name.
  Mr. Speaker, today I call on the Attorney General to release the non-
6(e) material from the Freeh and LaBella memoranda so that the American 
people can see for themselves what has been going on and so that they 
can judge for themselves whether she is fairly executing the laws which 
she is sworn to uphold.
  I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) for allowing me the 
opportunity to present this information and I appreciate his 
forthrightness in this matter.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sessions) that I neglected to say that the gentleman 
likewise is a very valued member of our committee and I really 
appreciate all the things that he does for this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), 
another valued member of the committee, who had a great special order 
last night.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton), for yielding. I thank him for his leadership and 
his attempts to try to move the Attorney General to action.
  Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say a few words in defense, albeit 
a mild defense, of Attorney General Reno. Her job is not easy. After 
all, it is not as though she is a nonpartisan person. She is a long-
time democrat. She was a staff director at the Florida House Judiciary 
Committee. She ran for the State legislature and lost. She was a long 
time State's attorney. She came to Washington as a partisan democrat 
and these days have to be very hard on the Attorney General, seeing 
around her all these allegations and all of these challenges. It has to 
be heart rending to her.
  The Attorney General was appointed by a democratic president and can 
be fired by that democratic president. So she has to look and consider 
that, even though you try not to when you are Attorney General of the 
United States. It is a fact. She is surrounded by political staff, 
democratic appointees. Remember, this White House sent the close 
Arkansas ally, Webb Hubbell, since in prison, to be her deputy Attorney 
General.
  This bears repeating. It is not every day that the Nation gets a 
deputy Attorney General who goes to jail while that administration is 
still in power. That is another thing that clearly made her job not 
easy.
  She has had to appoint special prosecutor after special prosecutor on 
cabinet member after cabinet member; certainly not an easy thing to do 
if you are a democratic former candidate, former staff person, former 
elected official now appointed by a democrat. She now has a special 
prosecutor on Harold Ickes, who is at the highest levels of the White 
House. Even higher than that, although it is in a limited way for the 
Vice President, even Judge Starr, after all that is an Attorney General 
Reno appointment, but his investigation was limited, and some of us, as 
the Nation is abuzz about sex, have concern about other matters and 
have for multiple years and that is what about the campaign finance?
  As we have been looking at this, and as we heard the FBI director as 
the chairman brought him in front of our committee, and Mr. LaBella and 
others, part of the question, as we look at the FBI as to how they 
approach drug cases, how they approach other issues, the goal has not 
been to try to set up and catch the lowest level people. There is a 
real question going on here.
  We see special prosecutor after special prosecutor chasing little 
bits of a larger picture; yet the training, the training of the people 
who investigate this type of thing in the FBI and others, is to look at 
combinations and to see who is behind this. Yet, we have not seen this 
coming out. There has been, at the very least, a reluctance, if not 
actually a deliberate attempt, to break up and not pursue the larger 
questions of why is this person doing this, why is this person doing 
this, why is this person doing this, why is this person doing this?
  People all over the country are debating this in another matter but 
we see this, as we heard last night, in the Teamsters investigation 
where the same names start to pop up. We see it in the casinos where 
the same names start to pop up. We see it in China in technology sales, 
where the same names start to pop up.
  When one sees this, one would think that the Attorney General would 
say, I better get to the bottom of this and see where it is headed, not 
where it is down there.
  This is not easy. She has a difficult job with it.
  One other thing I want to point out, we have had past cases in this 
House of Representatives far, far, far less serious than this, in fact 
most of which turned out to be false. Yet, we heard rhetoric on this 
floor that one would have thought the entire republic was collapsing 
because there were not special prosecutors.
  Now is this curious that this particular notion of shame be advanced 
by someone who has an ethical cloud over him so big and heavy that 
dewdrops now glisten on his neo-Victorian halo? Questions about whether 
the activities of a high public official are appropriate, ethical or 
legal become as pervasive as though raised about the complicated 
affair, which is something that was said about a Member on this floor.
  The American people should know where this money came from. Did these 
donors get anything in return, are there any conflicts of interest, was 
the high and mighty rhetoric on this floor paralyzing this country in 
the past, as allegations that have proven to be false even were thrown 
about.
  This cloud grows larger and darker with new questions of ethics 
violations, another Member said. Another one said, the cloud of alleged 
improprieties threaten public confidence in this House. Can appointing 
a special prosecutor remove this cloud of darkness?
  We heard this type of rhetoric, and it is just amazing how many of 
these people are silent. All of a sudden, independent prosecutor, oh, 
that is not a big deal. All of a sudden, apparently there is a 
different standard, that it is okay to go after individuals over 
history here on minor things but when we are questioning whether 
American technology was sold because of foreign money, when we are 
questioning whether inside deals were made on decision after decision, 
whether or not the very national security of this country has been at 
stake, well, then we do not really want to get into this.
  Even though the FBI director says, ``Hey, you are a democrat, you 
have a partisan stake, you do not really have

[[Page H7793]]

credibility to do this,'' when her own Justice Department officials say 
you do not have the credibility to do this, we have to move ahead.
  I commend the leader of this committee, the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Burton) for pushing to move this ahead.
  We have lots of discussions in this country about sex and whether 
there has been cover-ups and this and that and who did what, but, there 
is a lot more to this story and we need to get to the bottom of this 
truth. It is our obligation to do so, and I commend the gentleman for 
his leadership.

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Indiana for all the service he gives to his constituents and the 
country by working so hard on the committee. I really appreciate it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say after living through some 
of these investigations under both Chairman Clinger and now Chairman 
Burton, I did have the idea last year that maybe we need a new 
Institute of Health at the National Institutes of Health. Its mission 
would be to test the water that is used on Capitol Hill and in the 
White House, and do that on a weekly basis and see if any elements in 
that water have caused the loss of memory that we have heard from so 
many witnesses when they come before us.
  People have said that the Roman leadership died because the pipes 
were filled with lead. There are many private water dispensers in the 
legislative branch to keep that from happening.
  We need a lot of trained medical doctors who ought to be studying 
this memory loss that occurs only within the District of Columbia. 
Washington is probably the only city in the world where nobody can 
remember what they did when they made a decision.
  We, of course, remember. We have roll calls. Apparently they do not 
have roll calls elsewhere in this city and especially not at the other 
end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
  Getting back to Attorney General Reno, a lot of people have forgotten 
that she gave Independent Counsel Starr a number of additional 
assignments. That was cleared with the three judge court. The 
independent counsel, in essence, is an officer of that court. That is 
why that person is independent.
  In watching what has happened over the last few years and as a 
student of American history, to my knowledge, this is the first White 
House staff in the history of the United States, over 200 years, that 
consciously set up a war room to destroy the reputation of the 
independent counsel.
  When that happened, the President should have stopped it. No 
president should let that kind of an operation exist in or out of the 
White House. It is wrong. It is a violation of the civility which ought 
to exist within the separation of powers. Attacks which have been made 
to discredit the independent counsel are shameful. It is a shameful act 
to let those attacks go on and on and yet the have every day. Even with 
Chairman Clinger, who was recognized as one of the most civil members 
in the House, people were going through his garbage and all the rest of 
it, and that type of heat--or psychological stalking--simply because 
people are doing their duty under the Constitution. That childish 
behavior should not be part of American politics. We can do better than 
that.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. Speaker, I see that my time has about expired. Let me just end by 
saying, once again, for my colleagues, that there are 116 people, many 
friends of the administration, many people who are in the 
administration, who have taken the Fifth Amendment or fled the country. 
They do not want to talk to our committee. They do not want to talk to 
anybody because of the threat of self-incrimination, the threat that 
they might go to jail for what they have done; 116.
  That is unparalleled in American history, as far as any 
administration is concerned, unparalleled. Millions and millions of 
dollars have come in from Egypt, from China, from Taiwan, from Macao, 
from Indonesia, from South America, into the campaign coffers of the 
Clinton/Gore campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Much of 
that money has not been returned. The American people have a right to 
know what was given in exchange for these contributions.

  Foreign governments like communist China do not give great sums of 
money to foreign candidates, like the administration here in the United 
States, unless there is some reason for it. They do not give those 
large amounts of money just because they think we are nice. They want 
something in exchange. That is what we have to get to the bottom of. 
That is what we have to illuminate for the American people.
  Now, they ran out the investigation, they ran out the time on the 
investigation of Senator Thompson in the other body. The investigation 
of the independent counsel, Mr. Starr, is about to be concluded. Our 
investigation in the House, I think they hope, would conclude at the 
end of this legislative session. I want my colleagues to know that we 
will write an interim report at the end of this month, and should we 
have the same control next January that we have right now and should I 
be the chairman of this committee come next January, if the American 
people have not had all the facts given to them about these illegal 
campaign contributions that may have jeopardized our national security 
or compromised our foreign policy, then we will pick up the ball in 
January and go forward and get the facts for the American people. That 
is a promise I make to the people tonight.

                          ____________________