[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 83 (Monday, June 14, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1241-E1242]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


LEGISLATION TO EXTEND MANDATORY COVERAGE OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL LAW 
                    TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES

                                 ______
                                 

                      HON. JAMES A. TRAFICANT, JR.

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, June 14, 1999

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to 
require the U.S. Attorney General to call for the appointment of an 
independent counsel to investigate allegations that Justice Department 
employees engaged in misconduct, criminal activity, corruption, or 
fraud. The bill is similar to legislation I authored in the last three 
Congresses.
  The independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act of 
1978 require the Attorney General to conduct a preliminary 
investigation when presented with credible information of criminal 
wrongdoing by high-ranking executive branch officials. If the Attorney 
General finds that further investigation is warranted or makes no 
finding within 90-days, the Act requires the Attorney General to apply 
to a special division of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the appointment 
of an independent counsel. The Act also gives the Attorney General 
broad discretion in seeking the appointment of independent counsel with 
regard to individuals other than high ranking executive branch 
officials. However, the Attorney General is not required to do so in 
such cases.
  My bill amends the Act to treat allegations of misconduct, corruption 
or fraud on the part of Justice Department employees in the same manner 
as allegations made against high-ranking cabinet officials. My goal is 
to ensure that, when there is credible evidence of criminal wrongdoing 
in such cases, these cases are aggressively and objectively 
investigated.
  I am very concerned over the growing number of cases in which Justice 
Department employees have been accused of misconduct, corruption or 
fraud. In several cases I have personally investigated, innocent men 
fell victim to overzealous or corrupt federal prosecutors. No action 
has ever been taken against the prosecutors.
  The 1992 Randy Weaver incident that took place in Ruby Ridge, Idaho 
is perhaps the most notorious and disturbing example of Justice 
Department employees, in this case, high-ranking officials, acting in a 
questionable manner, and receiving no punishment other than 
disciplinary action. In the Randy Weaver case, an unarmed woman holding 
her infant child was shot to death by an FBI sharpshooter acting on 
orders from superiors. Former FBI deputy director Larry Potts allegedly 
approved the decision to change the rules of engagement

[[Page E1242]]

the FBI sharpshooters and other federal officials at Ruby Ridge were 
acting on. The decision allowed FBI sharpshooters to shoot on sight any 
armed adults--whether they posed an immediate threat or not. As a 
result of this decision, Vicki Weaver was shot to death while holding 
her infant daughter.
  While several officials, including Mr. Potts, were disciplined--some 
forced to leave the department--no criminal charges were ever filed 
against any of the officials involved in the Ruby Ridge incident. I 
would point out that at the outset of the incident a 14-year-old boy 
was shot in the back by U.S. Marshals. In August of 1996 the federal 
government agreed to pay the Weaver family more than $3 million--but 
did not admit any wrongdoing in the incident. The Ruby Ridge incident 
served as a stark reminder that the Justice Department does not do a 
very good job in objectively and aggressively investigating potential 
criminal acts or misconduct on the part of Justice Department 
employees. This is especially true of actions involving Justice 
Department attorneys.
  In 1990, a congressional inquiry found that no disciplinary action 
was taken on 10 specific cases investigated by the Justice Department's 
Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in which federal judges had 
made written findings of prosecutorial misconduct on the part of 
federal prosecutors. Several federal judges have expressed deep concern 
over the lack of supervision and control over federal prosecutors. In 
1993, three federal judges in Chicago reversed the convictions of 13 
members of the El Rukn street gang on conspiracy and racketeering 
charges after learning that assistant U.S. attorneys had given 
informants alcohol, drugs and sex in federal offices in exchange for 
cooperation, and had knowingly used perjured testimony. No criminal 
charges have ever been made against the federal prosecutors nor has OPR 
taken any meaningful disciplinary action, other than firing one U.S. 
attorney.
  Unfortunately for our democracy, over the years the Justice 
Department has built a wall of immunity around its attorneys so that it 
is extremely difficult to control the actions of an overzealous or 
corrupt prosecutor. In many instances, the attorney general has filed 
ethics complaints with state bar authorities against nongovernment 
lawyers who complain about ethical lapses by federal prosecutors. How 
has Congress let this agency get so out of control?
  The majority of Justice Department officials are hardworking, 
courageous and dedicated public servants. The unethical and criminal 
actions of a few officials and attorneys are tarnishing the reputation 
of the department. By allowing these actions to go unpunished or by not 
taking aggressive action in the form of criminal indictments, the 
department is eroding the public's confidence in government.
  As the El Rukn case illustrated, in their zeal to gain a conviction, 
federal prosecutors overstepped the boundaries of ethical and legal 
behavior. As a result, dangerous criminals were either set free or 
received greatly reduced sentences. Such actions are unacceptable. The 
federal government needs to act in an unambiguous and aggressive manner 
against any federal prosecutor or official who betrays the public trust 
in such a blatant and damaging fashion. Sadly, that was not done in the 
El Rukn case, and countless other cases where Justice Department 
officials acted in an unethical or illegal manner.
  The American people expect that the Justice Department--more than any 
other federal agency--conduct its business with the highest level of 
ethics and integrity. It is imperative that the Independent Counsel Act 
be amended to require that allegations of criminal misconduct on the 
part of Justice Department employees be treated with the same 
seriousness as allegations made against high-ranking cabinet officials. 
I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

                          ____________________