SPEAKERS       CONTENTS       INSERTS    
 Page 1       TOP OF DOC

    PLEASE NOTE: The following transcript is a portion of the official hearing record of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Additional material pertinent to this transcript may be found on the web site of the Committee at [http://www.house.gov/reform]. Complete hearing records are available for review at the Committee offices and also may be purchased at the U.S. Government Printing Office.

47–116 CC
1998

THE CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL ACT

VOLUME 1

HEARINGS

before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
AND OVERSIGHT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
FIRST SESSION

DECEMBER 9 AND 10, 1997

Serial No. 105–89

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico
CHRISTOPHER COX, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California
JOHN L. MICA, Florida
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia
DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio
MARSHALL ''MARK'' SANFORD, South Carolina
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
PETE SESSIONS, Texas
MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey
VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas
BOB BARR, Georgia
DAN MILLER, Florida
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
TOM LANTOS, California
ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GARY A. CONDIT, California
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, DC
CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
JIM TURNER, Texas
 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
            ———
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont (Independent)
KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director
RICHARD D. BENNETT, Chief Counsel
WILLIAM MOSCHELLA, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
JUDITH MCCOY, Chief Clerk
PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S

Hearings held on December 9 and 10, 1997
Volume 1—December 9, 1997
Statements of:
Freeh, Louis J., Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Reno, Janet, United States Attorney General
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Barr, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, exhibit 292
Burton, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana:
Chart on Independent Counsels, 1979–1998
Committee, Department of Justice, and FBI correspondence referred to
Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress legal opinion
Exhibits 276 and 276–1
Information concerning foreign money contribution to Antonio Pan
Interrogatories of Wayne Reaud, C.W. Conn, Jr., John Moores and Eli Broad
 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
White House documents
Cox, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, letter dated February 25, 1998
Freeh, Louis J., Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, prepared statement of
Gilman, Hon. Benjamin, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, prepared statement of
Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, information concerning tribes in Wisconsin
Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, information concerning conversation of December 7, 1995
Pappas, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, letter dated November 4, 1997
Reno, Janet, United States Attorney General:
Information concerning DNC Conduit Payments to Kansas
Information concerning notification
Information concerning section 591 of the statute
Letter dated June 19, 1997
Letter dated February 25, 1998
Letter dated February 25, 1998
Prepared statement of
Shays, Hon. a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut:
Records relating to Mark Middleton, Charlie Trie, Antonia Pan, and Webster Hubbell
Transcription of Tape 170A—Call to John Phillips
Transcription of Tapes 27A and B—Calls to Suzy Hubbell
Souder, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana, prepared statement of
 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
THE CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL ACT

VOLUME 1
December 9, 1997, hearing

VOLUME 2
December 10, 1997, hearing, and depositions from the December 9 and 10, 1997, hearings

THE CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL ACT
VOLUME 1

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1997
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton (chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Burton, Gilman, Morella, Shays, Cox, Ros-Lehtinen, Horn, Mica, Davis of Virginia, McIntosh, Shadegg, LaTourette, Pappas, Snowbarger, Barr, Miller, Lantos, Kanjorski, Sanders, Maloney, Barrett, Norton, Fattah, Cummings, Kucinich, Blagojevich, Tierney, Turner, and Allen.
    Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; Richard Bennett, chief counsel; Barbara Comstock, chief investigative counsel; Judith McCoy, chief clerk; Teresa Austin, assistant clerk/calendar clerk; William Moschella, deputy counsel and parliamentarian; Will Dwyer, director of communications; Ashley Williams, deputy director of communications; Dudley Hodgson, chief investigator; Dave Bossie, oversight coordinator; Robert Rohrbaugh, James C. Wilson, Uttam Dhillon, and Tim Griffin, senior investigative counsels; Kristi Remington, Charli Coon, Bill Hanka, and Jennifer Safavian, investigative counsels; Phil Larsen, investigative consultant; Jim Schumann, Jason Foster, and Miki White, investigators; Robin Butler, office manager; Carolyn Pritts, David Jones, and John Mastranadi, investigative staff assistants; Phil Schiliro, minority staff director; Phil Barnett, minority chief counsel; Kenneth Ballen, minority chief investigative counsel; Agnieszka Fryszman, Kristin Amerling, Christopher Lu, Andrew McLaughlin, Michael Raphael, David Sadkin, and Michael Yang, minority counsels; Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk; Becky Claster, Jean Gosa, and Andrew Su, minority staff assistants; and Sheridan Pauker, minority research assistant.
 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BURTON. Good morning. A quorum being present, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight will come to order.
    Before Mr. Lantos and I deliver our opening statements, we will dispose of some procedural matters first. I ask unanimous consent that all Members' and witnesses' statements be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
    I ask unanimous consent that all exhibits, articles and extraneous and tabular material referred to during this hearing be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
    I ask unanimous consent that the depositions of Holli Weymouth, David Mercer, B.J. Thornberry, Thomas F. McLarty, Bruce Lindsey, Douglas Buford and the interrogatories of Wayne Reaud, C.W. Conn, John Moores and Eli Broad be made part of the record and delivered to the FBI, the Department of Justice and the appropriate independent counsel so that they may pursue evidence the committee has gathered.
    Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would like to ask why we are singling out these particular depositions. It has been the position of the Democratic side of this committee that all depositions be made available and public. We have nothing to hide. It is our judgment that selecting specific depositions restricts the opportunity for the American people and for all who are engaged in this investigation to have full access to all the materials which are available.
    I would like to suggest respectfully that you amend your unanimous consent request to encompass all depositions.
    Mr. BURTON. Mr. Lantos, the reason we have picked these specific depositions is because we have questions that are relevant to these people and their depositions. If the minority has questions that they would like to ask regarding other people's depositions, we would entertain those as well.
 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. LANTOS. That is not my point, Mr. Chairman, so let me restate my point.
    Mr. BURTON. I understand your point. You don't need to restate it.
    Mr. LANTOS. Well, if you will allow me to make——
    Mr. BURTON. You have made your point.
    Do you object, Mr. Lantos?
    Mr. LANTOS. I will not be muffled. I wish to make a statement and I do not want you to cut it off.
    Mr. BURTON. Do you have a point of order you would like to raise?
    Mr. LANTOS. Yes, I do.
    Mr. BURTON. State your point of order.
    Mr. LANTOS. My point of order is that it is the judgment of this side that all depositions——
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman is not stating a point of order. If you have a point of order, state your point of order, Mr. Lantos.
    Mr. LANTOS. My point of order is that selective release of depositions jeopardizes the fairness of these proceedings. I am calling for the release of all depositions.
    Mr. BURTON. That is not a valid point of order. However, you have stated your position.
    Do you object, Mr. Lantos?
    Mr. LANTOS. I do.
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman objects. The question now comes on whether or not these—the clerk will report motion No. 2 at the desk.
 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The CLERK. Chairman Burton moves that the depositions of Holli Weymouth, David Mercer, B.J. Thornberry, Thomas F. McLarty, Bruce Lindsey, and Douglas Buford and the interrogatories of Wayne Reaud, C.W. Conn, John Moores, and Eli Broad be made part of the record and delivered to the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the appropriate independent counsel so that they may pursue evidence the committee has gathered.
    Mr. BURTON. The question now comes on the motion before the committee. All those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Those opposed will signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
    Mr. LANTOS. Roll call.
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman from California has asked for a roll call. A roll call will be granted. The clerk will call the roll.
    The CLERK. Mr. Burton.
    Mr. BURTON. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Burton votes aye.
    Mr. Gilman.
    Mr. GILMAN. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Gilman votes aye.
    Mr. Hastert.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mrs. Morella.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Shays.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Schiff.
 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Cox.
    Mr. COX. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Cox votes aye.
    Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
    Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Aye.
    The CLERK. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes aye.
    Mr. McHugh.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Horn.
    Mr. HORN. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Horn votes aye.
    Mr. Mica.
    Mr. MICA. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Mica votes aye.
    Mr. Davis of Virginia.
    Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Virginia votes aye.
    Mr. McIntosh.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Souder.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Scarborough.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Shadegg.
 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SHADEGG. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Shadegg votes aye.
    Mr. LaTourette.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. LaTourette votes aye.
    Mr. Sanford.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Sununu.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Sessions.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Pappas.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Snowbarger.
    Mr. SNOWBARGER. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Snowbarger votes aye.
    Mr. Barr.
    Mr. BARR. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Barr votes aye.
    Mr. Miller.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Waxman.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Lantos.
    Mr. LANTOS. No.
 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The CLERK. Mr. Lantos votes no.
    Mr. Wise.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Owens.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Towns.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Kanjorski.
    Mr. KANJORSKI. No.
    The CLERK. Mr. Kanjorski votes no.
    Mr. Condit.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Sanders.
    Mr. SANDERS. No.
    The CLERK. Mr. Sanders votes no.
    Mrs. Maloney.
    Mrs. MALONEY. No.
    The CLERK. Mrs. Maloney votes no.
    Mr. Barrett.
    Mr. BARRETT. No.
    The CLERK. Mr. Barrett votes no.
    Ms. Norton.
    Ms. NORTON. No.
    The CLERK. Ms. Norton votes no.
    Mr. Fattah.
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. FATTAH. Present.
    The CLERK. Mr. Fattah votes present.
    Mr. Cummings.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Kucinich.
    Mr. KUCINICH. No.
    The CLERK. Mr. Kucinich votes no.
    Mr. Blagojevich.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Tierney.
    Mr. TIERNEY. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Tierney votes aye.
    Mr. Turner.
    Mr. TURNER. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Turner votes aye.
    Mr. Allen.
    Mr. ALLEN. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Allen votes aye.
    Mr. Ford.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Hastert.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mrs. Morella.
 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Shays.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Schiff.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. McHugh.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. McIntosh.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Souder.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Scarborough.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Sanford.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Sununu.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Sessions.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Pappas.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Miller.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Waxman.
    [No response.]
 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The CLERK. Mr. Wise.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Owens.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Towns.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Condit.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Cummings.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Blagojevich.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Ford.
    [No response.]
    Mr. BURTON. The Clerk will report the tally.
    Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    The CLERK. Mr. Fattah is recorded as present.
    Mr. FATTAH. I would like to be recorded in favor.
    Mr. BURTON. The Clerk will report the tally.
    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 15 ayes, 7 nos.
    Mr. BURTON. The motion carries.
    [Note.—The depositions of Holli B. Weymouth, David Mercer, Betty Jane Thornberry, Thomas Franklin McLarty III, Bruce R. Lindsey, C. Douglas Buford, Jr., Mickey Kantor, and John R. Phillips can be found in Volume 2 of this hearing, dated December 10, 1997, on p. 301.]
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [The interrogatories of Wayne Reaud, C.W. Conn, Jr., John Moores and Eli Broad follow:]
    INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 1 TO 36 HERE
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]

    Mr. BURTON. Questioning in the matter under consideration shall proceed under clause 2(j)(2) of House Rule XI and committee rule 14 in which the chairman and ranking minority member allocate time to committee counsel as they deem appropriate for extended questioning not to exceed 60 minutes equally divided between the majority and minority.
    Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered.
    We would now like, if they are available, the Attorney General of the United States and the FBI Director to come in and be sworn.
    For the information of those in attendance, we will have two panels because we have a series of questions for each individual. The first panel will consist of the Attorney General of the United States, Janet Reno. And later on today, when she concludes and leaves, we will have FBI Director Louis Freeh before the committee as well.
    Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise a question.
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman will state his question.
    Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I have been advised by the distinguished Director of the FBI in a meeting yesterday that he requested that he appear jointly with our distinguished Attorney General. I think this is a reasonable request. I would like to support this request and I would like to suggest that these two outstanding public servants appear on a joint panel together.
    Mr. BURTON. I understand the gentleman's question. We have discussed this at some length. We have so many questions for the Attorney General and then we have a number of questions for the FBI Director. The Attorney General is under some time constraints. We are going to try to have her conclude her testimony by 2 or thereabouts so she may leave.
 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So we have decided that we have to have two separate panels, and I think we will be able to expedite our business more efficiently if we do that. So we will have the Attorney General first.
    Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, under those circumstances, I move that the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI appear together.
    Mr. BURTON. The motion is that the Attorney General and the FBI Director appear together before the committee instead of in two separate panels. The Clerk will call the roll. We will have a roll call vote on this.
    The CLERK. Mr. Burton.
    Mr. BURTON. No.
    The CLERK. Mr. Burton votes no.
    Mr. Gilman.
    Mr. GILMAN. No.
    The CLERK. Mr. Gilman votes no.
    Mr. Hastert.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mrs. Morella.
    Mrs. MORELLA. No.
    The CLERK. Mrs. Morella votes no.
    Mr. Shays.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Schiff.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Cox.
    Mr. COX. No.
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The CLERK. Mr. Cox votes no.
    Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
    Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No.
    The CLERK. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no.
    Mr. McHugh.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Horn.
    Mr. HORN. No.
    The CLERK. Mr. Horn votes no.
    Mr. Mica.
    Mr. MICA. No.
    The CLERK. Mr. Mica votes no.
    Mr. Davis of Virginia.
    Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. No.
    The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Virginia votes no.
    Mr. McIntosh.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Souder.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Scarborough.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Shadegg.
    Mr. SHADEGG. No.
    The CLERK. Mr. Shadegg votes no.
    Mr. LaTourette.
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. LATOURETTE. No.
    The CLERK. Mr. LaTourette votes no.
    Mr. Sanford.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Sununu.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Sessions.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Pappas.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Snowbarger.
    Mr. SNOWBARGER. No.
    The CLERK. Mr. Snowbarger votes no.
    Mr. Barr.
    Mr. BARR. No.
    The CLERK. Mr. Barr votes no.
    Mr. Miller.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Waxman.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Lantos.
    Mr. LANTOS. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Lantos votes aye.
    Mr. Wise.
    [No response.]
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The CLERK. Mr. Owens.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Towns.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Kanjorski.
    Mr. KANJORSKI. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Kanjorski votes aye.
    Mr. Condit.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Sanders.
    Mr. SANDERS. Yes.
    The CLERK. Mr. Sanders votes yes.
    Mrs. Maloney.
    Mrs. MALONEY. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mrs. Maloney votes aye.
    Mr. Barrett.
    Mr. BARRETT. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Barrett votes aye.
    Ms. Norton.
    Ms. NORTON. Aye.
    The CLERK. Ms. Norton votes aye.
    Mr. Fattah.
    Mr. FATTAH. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Fattah votes aye.
    Mr. Cummings.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. CUMMINGS. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Cummings votes aye.
    Mr. Kucinich.
    Mr. KUCINICH. Yes.
    The CLERK. Mr. Kucinich votes yes.
    Mr. Blagojevich.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Tierney.
    Mr. TIERNEY. Yes.
    The CLERK. Mr. Tierney votes yes.
    Mr. Turner.
    Mr. TURNER. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Turner votes aye.
    Mr. Allen.
    Mr. ALLEN. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Allen votes aye.
    Mr. Ford.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Hastert.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Shays.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Schiff.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. McHugh.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. McIntosh.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Souder.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Scarborough.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Sanford.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Sununu.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Sessions.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Pappas.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Miller.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Waxman.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Wise.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Owens.
    [No response.]
 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The CLERK. Mr. Towns.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Condit.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Blagojevich.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Ford.
    [No response.]
    Mr. BURTON. The Clerk will report the tally.
    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 12 ayes and 12 nays.
    Mr. BURTON. The motion fails. We will proceed as planned.
    Good morning, Madam Attorney General. I understand you prefer to be called Ms. Reno rather than Attorney General.
    Ms. RENO. Well, what I object to is General, because my predecessors looked at the history and determined that it was the attorney who did general work for the Crown as opposed to specific work, and that is the way the name arose. So I am an adjective, not a noun.
    Mr. BURTON. Well, I appreciate that historical fact. How about I address you as Ms. Reno?
    Ms. RENO. That would be fine, sir. Thank you.
    Mr. BURTON. I have called this hearing today because of the unique and unfortunate situation in which we find ourselves. This is the first time in my memory, and maybe in history, that the Attorney General of the United States and the Director of the FBI have disagreed so publicly about such an important issue. The campaign finance investigation involves the President and the Vice President of the United States. It involves their top aides. It involves their major fund-raisers. When our Nation's—the opening statements, Mr. Lantos, will not have any time constraints. If you choose to use as much time as I do, you are welcome to do that.
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    When our Nation's top two law enforcement officers have a serious disagreement about a case involving our country's highest elected officials, Congress is compelled to step in and examine the facts.
    Last week Attorney General Reno said that there will be no independent counsel for this investigation. We are led to believe through press accounts that Director Freeh objected vigorously. The Director wrote a detailed memo to the Attorney General explaining why an independent counsel is necessary. Despite a subpoena from this committee, we still have not seen this memo. However, the Wall Street Journal reports that Director Freeh's memo lays out the case that the diversion of soft money into hard money by the DNC and other related campaign finance law violations may have constituted a conspiracy that reaches into the White House.
    According to the New York Times, Mr. Freeh's memo argues that the conflicts of interest for the Justice Department are so great that the Department cannot credibly investigate the campaign finance issue.
    I must ask, how are Members of Congress and the public supposed to react when they pick up the newspaper and this is what they read?
    Several articles in the Washington Post in October, for instance, spelled out some of the deep divisions between the FBI and the Justice Department lawyers on the task force. FBI officials said that they were being restrained from investigating key people, especially high-level Clinton administration officials.
    If that is the way the investigation has been operating, the need for an independent counsel could not be more clear. The Justice Department investigation has been under way for more than a year. We have heard reports that, in that time, they have not even attempted to contact John Huang or get his testimony. He is one of the central figures in this case. Why hasn't he been contacted? We have heard reports that the task force develops new leads mainly when it reads about them in the newspaper. It was widely reported that the Justice Department had documents in its possession that showed that the DNC was converting soft money to hard money. Unfortunately the prosecutors learned about it by reading the Washington Post. Why? They had the documents, and they did not look at them.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    One of the Attorney General's primary advisors on this investigation has been the head of the Public Integrity Section, Mr. Lee Radek. Mr. Radek has publicly called the Independent Counsel Act, quote, ''an insult.'' Is this the person that should be advising the Attorney General on whether we seek an independent counsel?
    In July, Senator Thompson said in his opening statement that there was a Communist Chinese Government plot to infiltrate our political system. He then received a public letter from Andrew Fois at the Justice Department contradicting his statement, and it was widely publicized.
    Now, within the last month, Bob Woodward has reported in the Washington Post that the Justice Department had other information in its files that supported Senator Thompson's statement. The files, which were only revealed to us in November, were reported to shed more light on the Chinese Government plan. This information has apparently been in the Justice Department files since 1991, yet the Justice Department was writing to Senator Thompson saying that he was misstating the facts. I think that is terrible.
    What is worse, the Attorney General was informed about this information on November 5th. We were not given this information, Madam Attorney General, until November 14th, 10 days later. This is absolutely unacceptable conduct.
    The Attorney General has stated that her refusal to seek an independent counsel is based on the law and the facts. She is wrong on both counts. Section 591 of the Independent Counsel Act clearly authorizes the Attorney General to request an independent counsel whenever the Department of Justice has ''a personal, financial or political conflict of interest.'' Section 591 recognizes that sometimes the Attorney General simply has an unavoidable conflict of interest in investigating other Government officials.
    The President is the Attorney General's boss. She serves at his pleasure. She cannot conduct an impartial investigation of the President and his political allies. Listen to the Attorney General's own words when she testified in 1992. Will you play the video, please? 1993, pardon me. This was before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [Videotape played.]
    Mr. BURTON. I am not sure that our staff had the right quote up there. So I will read the correct quote. I will quote the Attorney General directly. She said, ''The reason that I support the concept of an independent counsel with statutory independence is that there is an inherent conflict whenever senior executive branch officials are to be investigated by the Department and its appointed head, the Attorney General,'' end quote.
    How have investigations of the White House been handled by Attorneys General in the past? Just look at Iran-Contra. Within a month of the Iran-Contra story breaking in 1986, Attorney General Ed Meese requested an independent counsel. President Reagan publicly called on him to do so. Mr. Meese said it was in the public interest. Oliver North was not a, quote, ''covered person.'' Mr. Meese used the same ''conflict of interest'' section of the law that we are talking about today and asking Attorney General Reno to use.
    What a marked contrast with the Clinton administration. It has been 14 months since this foreign fund-raising scandal became public. The Attorney General is still resisting an independent counsel. Unlike President Reagan, President Clinton has not called for an independent counsel. He has remained silent. This has all the appearances of an Attorney General protecting the President.
    By focusing on the narrow issue of phone calls from the White House, Ms. Reno guaranteed the result of her preliminary inquiry. By apparently avoiding key witnesses and stifling attempts by FBI agents to interview key people, the Attorney General continues to allow her investigation to drag on with few results.
    Ever since the independent counsel law was enacted in 1979, every other President and Attorney General, when faced with such
large, politically sensitive cases, has turned them over to an independent counsel. I would refer to the chart on the screen, if we can get that right this time, which identified 19 independent counsels which have been appointed over the years.
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [The chart referred to follows:]
    INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 37 TO 39 HERE
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]

    Mr. BURTON. While the Attorney General has cited her previous appointments of independent counsels as evidence of her impartiality, she omits that in one case which touched upon the President, the Whitewater investigation, she initially opposed appointing an outside counsel and only did so after months of opposing it, and at the direction of the President. Many of my Democrat colleagues here today will say that this is a partisan Republican attack against the Attorney General. We will hear this repeated throughout the day. Fortunately, that is not true.
    The need for an independent counsel to investigate the White House has been obvious to many Democrats. Former President Jimmy Carter has called for an independent counsel. So has Senator Moynihan, Senator Feingold and Senator Wellstone. Even Henry Waxman, the ranking member of this committee, called for an independent counsel last February.
    It does not stop there. Groups like Common Cause have been very critical of the Attorney General. If that is not enough, just pick up the New York Times. The Times is hardly an arm of the Republican party, yet 15 times in the last year, the Times has called for an independent counsel.
    Former Justice Department officials also see the need. Phillip Heymann, Ms. Reno's former Deputy Attorney General, who also served in the same position in the Carter administration, supports the appointment of an independent counsel. He has said, and I quote, ''I served in seven administrations, and I have never seen the Justice Department so dominated in the policy realm by the White House.'' Mr. Heymann also stated, ''I think the law requires her to appoint an independent counsel. . . . I think the career people are telling her the law hasn't been broken, and I think they are wrong,'' end quote.
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. Reno would have us believe that she can thoroughly and impartially investigate people such as Webster Hubbell, her former Associate Attorney General. He was convicted and sent to jail. In the summer of 1994, while he was under investigation, Webster Hubbell was paid $100,000 by the Riady family's Lippo Group. Ms. Reno defended Webster Hubbell and called him her friend. Can she conduct an impartial investigation and question Mr. Hubbell about his dealings with the Riadys, with John Huang and other people who are subjects of our investigation? This would certainly appear to pose a conflict.
    John Huang, the President's, quote, ''longtime friend,'' to use the President's own words, has anyone at the task force asked him for a full accounting? We were surprised to learn from his attorney last spring that he had not been contacted. Indeed Mr. Huang's attorney was surprised he had not been contacted, and we continue to hear that there has been almost no contact.
    Charlie Trie, another longtime friend of the President's—have there been any attempts to bring him to justice? Charlie Trie's sister testified before this committee that when she met the President at a fund-raiser, President Clinton told her that her brother had been his close friend for 2 decades.
    Trie is someone who knew the President for years, and gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the campaign and the President's Legal Defense Fund. At virtually the same time, he was awarded a coveted Trade Commission slot. Before he was appointed, the First Lady and Harold Ickes were warned of Trie's suspicious contributions to the Legal Defense Fund, which were all returned.
    Conveniently, Charlie Trie has fled the country and bragged to NBC's Tom Brokaw that he can stay lost in China for as long as 10 years. When China's President Jiang Zemin visited Washington in October, I asked the President in two separate letters to seek the return of Charlie Trie for questioning. The President has promised to cooperate with this investigation; however, he apparently made no effort to raise this subject with President Jiang.
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Bruce Babbitt presents a remarkable situation. We have the Attorney General withholding documents under executive privilege claims in this matter in a civil lawsuit. At the same time, the Attorney General is supposed to, quote, thoroughly and impartially, end quote, investigate allegations of wrongdoing by her Cabinet colleague and his aides as well as senior White House officials in a criminal investigation. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service Legal Division has found no basis for the White House and DOJ's privilege claims in these documents. I will submit the CRS opinion and correspondence to the Attorney General on this matter for the record.
    The Attorney General clearly has inherent conflicts with these close friends of the President and many other key people in this investigation. But the problems do not stop there. The Justice Department has sided with the White House in almost every politically sensitive matter of recent note. They sided with the White House and opposed Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr when he sought Whitewater-related notes. They lost.
    The Attorney General and the Justice Department also sided with the President and argued before the Supreme Court that he was immune from a civil suit arising out of events that occurred before the President took office. They lost.
    Justice Department lawyers also opposed Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz's attempt to prosecute a top Agriculture Department official. Again, they lost.
    Mr. Smaltz has been leading the investigation into former Agriculture Secretary, Mike Espy. He has obtained 10 indictments, 5 convictions, and 6 guilty pleas. He will testify tomorrow about the roadblocks thrown up by the Justice Department that have hampered his important work.
    The Attorney General's decision not to appoint an independent counsel is one of the most important decisions she has made during her tenure. It is, to say the least, a controversial one. The American people and Congress have a right to know both how and why she arrived at her decision. Clearly, there was a serious disagreement between the Attorney General and the FBI Director.
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    We have gone out of our way to address concerns about grand jury material that might be in the memo. We have indicated that grand jury material could be redacted, crossed out; however, there was no attempt on the Attorney General's part to meet us halfway. Ms. Reno said on television on Sunday, I think it was Face the Nation, that there have been ongoing discussions between her staff and our committee. Unfortunately, that is not true. We have had almost no contact from the Justice Department since last Friday, even though the Attorney General said otherwise on Face the Nation.
    There is clear precedent for Congress receiving such documents. I am submitting for the record the correspondence we have had back and forth with the Justice Department on Director Freeh's memo as well as a review of the Congressional Research Service regarding precedents for turning over such material.
    Congress has an obligation to make sure that the Justice Department is enforcing the law in a fair and evenhanded manner. If half of the news reports we are reading about the Justice Department are true, we have cause for concern.
    Those concerns are compounded when we learn that our two top law enforcement offices have such a fundamental disagreement over the needs for an independent counsel. With a case of this magnitude, Congress cannot sit idly by. We have an obligation to pursue Director Freeh's memo and hope that the Justice Department will commit some time to work with us.
    The Director of the FBI serves a 10-year term. Congress provided the FBI Director with this 10-year term after Watergate, so he would have the independence that is necessary to enforce the law free from political pressure. This is particularly important when investigations involve the White House and high level political officials.
    The Attorney General does not have the same security. She is a member of the President's cabinet. The Attorney General comes and goes with the President who appoints her and serves at his pleasure.
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Director Freeh has served this country as an FBI agent, a Federal prosecutor, a Federal judge, and now is the Nation's top investigator. He arrived at the independent judgment that the credibility of this investigation would best be served by appointing an independent counsel.
    In response, the Director has been the target of a steady stream of attacks from the White House. This constant sniping at the Director of the FBI from the White House is the clearest sign we have of where the President stands. The Clinton White House has an instinct to attack any time it feels threatened. Mr. McCurry's comments about the Director were disgraceful. I think the President should issue a public apology to Mr. Freeh.
    As the chief law enforcement officer in the Nation, Director Freeh's duty is to the law. That duty should not be subordinated to anybody, including the President. It is interesting that the President's people think the FBI should be loyal subordinates.
    Before I finish, I would like to address one last topic. I understand that my friends on the Democratic side are going to make an issue of my involvement in this hearing. According to Roll Call magazine, they are going to ask for an independent counsel to investigate these bogus charges that have been raised against me.
    Let me say this to my good friends, and I hope you are all listening, I have no problem with that at all. I believe that we need an independent counsel for the entire task force investigation. If the Attorney General wants to include my case under an independent counsel, I say fine. You know as well as I do that these are politically timed, politically motivated charges made by a former Democrat White House staffer and a leader of the Democrat National Committee who worked for the Democrat National Finance Committee. They are merely part of a smear campaign.
    If you want to include me in that kind of investigation, fine. I have nothing to fear from an independent counsel.
 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    It is apparent that the President does not feel the same way. If the Attorney General is willing to request an independent counsel for this entire campaign finance investigation, I have absolutely no problem with having my case included with the others. The American people must have confidence in our Justice Department.
    Many have noted that both Republican allegations and Democrat allegations must be pursued. And I agree. An independent counsel is the best way for the Justice Department to proceed with its responsibilities. In Congress, in this committee, we will continue our public review of these important matters so that the American people who have a right to know are not kept in the dark.
    [The Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress legal opinion referred to and the prepared statements of Hon. Benjamin Gilman and Hon. Mark Souder follow:]
    INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 40 TO 78 HERE
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]

    Mr. BURTON. Mr. Lantos.
    Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Your opening statement is so pregnant with inaccuracies, misstatements, innuendos and false statements, that were I to respond to all of them we would be here until midnight. Let me just state one general item which I think sort of puts this thing in perspective.
    You started out your statement by suggesting that a disagreement between an Attorney General and an FBI Director is unique in American history. I don't know what this reveals except your total lack of understanding of American history. Recent American history has given us countless examples of Attorneys General and FBI Directors disagreeing on important issues. And I find it not at all surprising that these two distinguished public servants occasionally find themselves on opposite sides of an issue. But let me put this whole investigation and the appearance of the Attorney General and the FBI Director in some perspective.
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    There has been an attempt on the part of the Republican majority of this committee to portray the 1996 elections as one between one party with pristine purity, obeying all Federal election laws, and the other party mired in illegal activities. Now, you don't have to have the IQ of a 10-year-old-child to recognize the absurdity of this underlying assumption. There were plenty of violations of law on both sides, and it is the position of the Democratic minority on this committee that every single one of these violations, whether committed by Democrats or Republicans, high or low, should be investigated to the fullest extent of the law and the perpetrators should be punished according to the law. This is our position.
    Unfortunately, the conduct of this investigation by the majority has clearly indicated that this is the most lopsided and partisan investigation in American history. You issued some 700 subpoenas to Democrats and I believe 11 to Republicans. We have been unable to deal with any Republican violations because the majority has stifled us every step of the way.
    Now, let me deal with the issues of this hearing. I want to say a few words about Janet Reno.
    President Kennedy wrote a book entitled ''Profiles in Courage.'' And if a sequel will be written to that book entitled ''Profiles of Integrity,'' the most noble chapter of that profile will be a profile of this distinguished Attorney General. I meet, as many of you do, with students who visit Washington on various programs. And invariably I use Janet Reno as the paragon of public virtue, as the paragon of an outstanding, impeccable public servant. And I would like to extend to our distinguished Attorney General my personal apologies for the outrageous statements made about you and concerning you over recent weeks. These are cheap, petty, partisan political attacks, and the people who make them will be thrown into the dust bin of history while your fine record will stand here as an important chapter in American history.
    Let me also say a word about the Director of the FBI. I have the highest regard for this distinguished public servant. He has served our Nation with exemplary effectiveness, integrity, and intelligence. And I profoundly deplored the attempts of the Republicans on this committee and in this town to try to drive a wedge between two distinguished, outstanding public servants, both of them of impeccable integrity.
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I want to say a word about Mr. Burton's comments concerning conflicts of interest in the Attorney General conducting this investigation.
    The facts are, Mr. Burton, that the independent counsel law was written by the Congress. It was not written by Louis Freeh or Janet Reno. That law gives the Attorney General sole jurisdiction in determining whether an independent counsel is called for or not. She takes advice from many sources. But the judgment call is hers.
    The fact that we occasionally disagree with judgment calls is nothing new. The Supreme Court often has five to four decisions. It would be preposterous and absurd to question the integrity of the four or the five who are on different sides of those cases. But this is really not the Supreme Court. This is a staff agency.
    Let me indicate from the Justice Department manual the role of the FBI. And I am quoting. The FBI is a fact-finding and reporting agency only. The results of FBI investigations are furnished without recommendation or conclusion to the U.S. Attorney's Office or to the Department for the determination of appropriate action. The decision for action to be taken is the sole responsibility of the U.S. Attorneys or the Department and special agents are not authorized to express an opinion as to such matters.
    The Attorney General received advice from the FBI Director. She received advice from many other sources. And with her customary and traditional integrity and independence, she made a judgment.
    Now, the people whose hatred for the Clinton administration has reached pathological proportions simply cannot deal with this. They simply cannot deal with this. They become livid because they think that they will be missing yet another opportunity to attack the administration. Now, that is too bad. That is too bad. In some cases only quick medical advice may be helpful in dealing with the degree of pathological hatred that permeates portions of this town.
    I also find it amusing, truly amusing, Mr. Burton, that you cite the New York Times editorials as your ultimate source of wisdom. I wonder how many times during the last decades you found the New York Times editorial judgments horrendous, abhorrent, idiotic. There are editorial judgments on both sides of this issue. Scores of distinguished newspapers agreed with the decision of the Attorney General. Others disagree with her decision. That is the nature of a free and open and democratic society.
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I would also like to make an observation concerning your demand for the FBI Director's recent memorandum to the Attorney General. I want to be very careful that you listen to the letter I am about to read because this letter was sent to you and signed by both our distinguished Attorney General and our distinguished Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    December 8, 1997, to Mr. Burton:

    We are writing in response to your December 5 letter and subpoenas seeking a copy of the Director's recent memorandum to the Attorney General. The memorandum expresses the Director's views about whether the Attorney General should request the appointment of an independent counsel and about other matters relating to the pending campaign finance investigation.
    We remain quite concerned.

Not I, not the Attorney General, we, the FBI Director and the Attorney General.

    We remain quite concerned that releasing the Director's memorandum to Congress would compromise the Department's ability to discharge its responsibilities for the fair administration of justice. As a general matter, we feel strongly that the Attorney General's decisionmaking on prosecutorial matters must have the benefit of candid and confidential advice and recommendations from the Director and other Department officials and employees. More specifically, we believe that both the integrity of the criminal justice process and the Government's ability to prevail in particular prosecutions could be threatened by acceding to the Committee's demand.

 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Parenthetically, I might add, it was not the committee's demand, it was the Republicans' demand on the committee. On the Democratic side, we think this demand was outrageous.
    I am continuing to quote from the letter written by Director Freeh and Attorney General Reno.

    Public and judicial confidence in the criminal justice process would be undermined by congressional intrusion into an ongoing criminal investigation. Access to the confidential details of an ongoing investigation would place Members of Congress in a position to exert certain pressure or attempt to influence the prosecution of specific cases, irreparably damaging enforcement efforts.

Irreparably damaging enforcement efforts.

    Moreover, the disclosure of this memorandum could provide a ''road map'' of our investigation. The document, or information contained therein, could come into the possession of the targets of the investigation through inadvertence or deliberate act on the part of someone having access to the documents. The investigation could thereby be seriously prejudiced by the revelation of the direction of the investigation or information about the evidence we possess. In addition, the reputation of individuals mentioned in a document like this could be severely damaged by the public release of information about them, even though the case might ultimately not warrant prosecution.
    Finally, the Department has reviewed the precedent cited in your letter,

that is the Burton letter,
 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

and in the accompanying Congressional Research Service memorandum. It is unprecedented,

I repeat, it is unprecedented,

for a Congressional committee to demand internal decisionmaking memoranda generated during an ongoing criminal investigation.

    What you are asking for, Mr. Burton, is unprecedented.
    Returning to the letter:

    None of the cited examples are to the contrary. In particular, the three prior matters that you highlighted in your letter did not involve ongoing criminal investigations and, therefore, are not relevant precedents.
    We have decided,

we, again, the Attorney General and the head of the FBI,

    We have decided for the foregoing reasons that we must respectfully continue to decline your request for the memorandum. We will be prepared at tomorrow's Committee hearing to respond to your questions to the fullest extent we can, consistent with our law enforcement responsibilities. We are hopeful that our participation in the hearing will respond to your concerns. If questions remain after the hearing, we would be willing to discuss them further in a manner that properly accommodates both the legislative and executive branch concerns. Sincerely, signed, Janet Reno, Attorney General; Louis J. Freeh, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    [NOTE.—The information referred to can be found on p. 101.]
    Mr. LANTOS. Well, this is the response of two responsible public servants to an irresponsible, politically motivated, tawdry, partisan request, and I want to fully associate myself with that letter.
    The facts speak for themselves. As the Attorney General has stated, the investigation is ongoing. If, in her judgment, at any time in the future she feels that an independent counsel should be appointed, I have full confidence she will do so. Janet Reno has appointed more independent counsels than any Attorney General in American history. This is not a person who will be intimidated; this is not a person who can be threatened; this is not a person who can be bullied. She is a person who is an enormously competent attorney, who responds to her own conscience, who follows the law, and who follows the facts. That is why she stands in such high admiration by the American people.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. BURTON. Before I ask the Attorney General to be sworn in, I ask unanimous consent that all committee, Department of Justice and FBI correspondence we have traded over the past 2 weeks be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information referred to follows:]
    INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 79 TO 238 HERE
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]

    [Witness sworn.]
    Mr. BURTON. On behalf of the committee, we welcome you here today. You are recognized to make an opening statement, and your entire testimony will be submitted for the record.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

STATEMENT OF JANET RENO, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
    Ms. RENO. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Lantos.
    Mr. BURTON. Would you pull the mic a little bit closer, please? Thank you very much.
    Ms. RENO. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Lantos and members of the committee, I am pleased to appear before the committee today and very much appreciate your accommodating my schedule relating to the Ministers of Justice who are here and will be here this afternoon.
    One of the most important duties Congress has to oversee is the work of the executive branch. Since I took office in 1993, I have come before the House and Senate many times to answer questions and explain the work and the conduct of the Justice Department. This is one of my most important duties, and I appreciate this opportunity to be with you today.
    In connection with the committee's oversight investigation of campaign finance matters, the Department has provided the committee with classified briefings on matters related to its investigation, and we have provided the committee with more than 200 documents. Those documents include classified material, memorandums that do not relate to the Campaign Financing Task Force's ongoing criminal investigation, and portions of telephone logs and calendars of high-ranking Government officials, including my own. We will continue to work with the committee to assist in its oversight needs consistent with our law enforcement responsibilities to our ongoing criminal investigation.
    In effect, we have two functions. They are different, and I want to do everything I can to fulfill my function of investigation and prosecution under the law, while at the same time working with you to do everything possible to support the exercise of your oversight function.
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. Chairman, I would also like to address your request for a copy of Director Freeh's recent memorandum to me discussing the campaign finance investigation and expressing his views about whether I should request the appointment of an independent counsel. The Director and I remain quite concerned about releasing that memorandum, as indicated in the letter which Congressman Lantos has read. We are concerned that releasing it would compromise the Department's ability to discharge its responsibilities to ensure the fair administration of justice. We feel strongly that as investigative and prosecutorial decisionmakers, we must have the benefit of candid and confidential advice and recommendations from our advisors. We do not want to chill the free exchange of ideas necessary to a solid investigation and legal decisionmaking.
    In addition, the disclosure of this memorandum could provide a road map of our investigation, thus jeopardizing our work by tipping off potential targets of our approach and of our analysis. I am sure we will be discussing these issues further during today's hearing. As Director Freeh and I indicated, we will be prepared to respond to your questions to the fullest extent we can consistent with our law enforcement responsibilities. We are hopeful that our participation in the hearing will respond to your concerns, and we will continue to work with you.
    Our staffs have already recently discussed several other matters of interest to the committee, including the FBI investigation known as Mercury Action and our more recent investigative activity regarding an Indian gaming proposal in Wisconsin. We are prepared to work with you to accommodate the committee's oversight needs for information on these matters to the extent possible, consistent with our law enforcement responsibilities. This process is clearly less complicated where the Department's investigation is closed, such as in Mercury Action, and we will do the best we can with each request. I look forward to a continuing dialog with you and the committee on all of these matters. I know you and the Members of your committee are anxious to discuss the work of the Campaign Financing Task Force, and I look forward to discussing it with you to the extent that I can.
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Before providing the committee an overview of recent action by the task force and my decision under the Independent Counsel Act not to seek the appointment of an independent counsel as a result of our preliminary investigations of President Clinton, Vice President Gore and former Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary, I would like to take a moment to talk about two important things. First, there has been a great deal of discussion in the media and around Washington about disagreements within the Department of Justice, and I would like to address those issues head on. Second, I would like to discuss the fine work of prosecutors, agents of the FBI, and the Campaign Financing Task Force on this matter. It is entirely consistent with the hard work and dedication to the American people that I have seen in the Justice Department's outstanding employees.
    As for disagreements within the Department, and in particular disagreements between Director Freeh and me, let me say this very, very clearly. Louis Freeh is one of the most dedicated public servants I know. He is an experienced investigator, he is an experienced prosecutor, and he is an excellent Director of the FBI. I know, because I have worked with him for 4 years through some of the most difficult situations that public servants confront. I have seen him there at the ready, there ready to give good advice, untarnished advice, honest advice, and that is the kind of Director of the FBI I want. I value his judgment, I value his counsel, and we have a strong and very amicable working relationship that I don't think anybody is going to bust up.
    We do not always agree. As he will tell you in his statement today, we disagree on the issue of whether I should apply for the appointment of an independent counsel. But I would be upset if I found that the Director of the FBI was agreeing with me all the time, and I wouldn't think he was doing his job.
    When I took this job, I deliberately sought out independent thinkers to work in the Department. I do not want to be surrounded by yes people, telling me what they think I want to hear, because that would not serve the American people. In setting up this Campaign Financing Task Force, Director Freeh and I have followed the same practice. We discuss the issues, and we sometimes disagree. It is healthy. It promotes good investigative work and clear thinking about the law.
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    With respect to the Independent Counsel Act, after listening to the reports on the investigation, discussions about the law, and all of the debates, it is my job to take all of that information and make the legal decision that Congress entrusted to me and to me alone. I have done so, Mr. Chairman, and for as long as I serve this Nation as Attorney General, I am going to continue to do so in the same manner.
    One of the things I learned about editorials a long time ago, and I am sure you have learned about it, if not from the New York Times, from your local newspaper, that there are a lot of editorials you just disagree with. If editorials, however, have arguments based on the evidence and the law, I want to consider them, but I will get the best lawyers and the best agents to give me their best recommendations, and I will make the decisions based on the evidence and the law, and not on newspaper headlines, newspaper editorials, threats, or polls.
    That is what we do in the Justice Department every day, and that is why I want to especially commend the work of the 108,000 fine people who serve the American people at the Department of Justice. They work around this Nation and around the world. They catch spies and drug lords and terrorists. They stand guard at our borders. They uphold our liberties, and around the country the Justice Department and the FBI are full partners with police, mayors and neighborhoods in the 24-hour-per-day world of protecting the public and prosecuting criminals.
    In this particular campaign finance investigation, as in all others entrusted to the Department of Justice, we are going to follow every lead wherever it goes, and if at any time specific and credible evidence develops indicating that the Independent Counsel Act should be triggered, I will not hesitate to do so.
    More than a year ago, the Justice Department assembled a fine task force of experienced attorneys and FBI agents to investigate allegations of criminal wrongdoing surrounding the 1996 elections. No criminal case in this Department has more resources. The task force now numbers more than 120. More than 1 million pages of documents have been obtained, hundreds of interviews have been conducted, and agents have been dispatched across the country and around the world to track down leads.
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Numerous allegations have been made against high-level Government officials. As required by the Independent Counsel Act, we have reviewed every one of them to see if there is specific and credible information that a crime may have been committed by a covered person or someone for whom it would be a conflict of interest for the Justice Department to investigate. When these allegations have been specific and credible, we have instituted a preliminary investigation. That is what the law demands, and we have implemented it faithfully.
    Since I have been Attorney General, I have sought the appointment of no fewer than four independent counsels. I have also sought the expansion of independent counsels' ongoing investigations and have referred other matters to them. Last week, pursuant to the law, I decided that the allegations against President Clinton, Vice President Gore and former Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary do not at this time warrant the appointment of an independent counsel. This decision was mine, and it was based on the facts and the law, and not pressure, politics, or any other factor.
    I want to emphasize one point. Any decision not to ask for an independent counsel does not mean that a person has been exonerated or that the work of the Campaign Finance Task Force has ended. These decisions do not end our work. We will continue to investigate vigorously all allegations of illegal activity, and if the Independent Counsel Act is triggered, I will do so.
    With respect to the decisions I made last week, I would note that the complete statement in our notification to the court of matters that can be made public is contained in the notification, a copy of which has been forwarded to you, and I would ask that that be reviewed for the specifics.
    [The information referred to follows:]
    INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 239 TO 291 HERE
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Ms. RENO. With respect to President Clinton, on October 14th of this year, we began a preliminary investigation, pursuant to the act, into allegations that President Clinton may have violated Federal law by making fund-raising calls from his office. Documents obtained by investigators identified 68 potential donors who might have been solicited by the President. Sixty-four of them were interviewed, and the other four gave statements through their attorneys. Investigators also interviewed White House and DNC personnel who might reasonably have been aware of any fund-raising calls made by the President. President Clinton was interviewed. Investigators also thoroughly reviewed other records, including telephone toll records, White House operator diaries, scheduling requests, and the President's schedule. We have taken every reasonable step to investigate these allegations.
    The investigation uncovered three occasions when the President made telephone calls from the White House relating to fund-raising. In two of these instances, the President was calling to thank a contributor or fund-raisers and did not solicit contributions. On the third occasion, on October 18, 1994, the President placed a number of fund-raising calls to potential contributors. Telephone records, investigative interviews and the President's schedule all established that these calls were made from the White House residence, not from the Oval Office or any other official White House space. The criminal law prohibiting solicitation of political contributions on Federal property does not encompass the residential areas of the White House.
    With respect to Vice President Gore, on September 3rd of this year, we began a preliminary investigation into allegations that the Vice President may have violated Federal law by making fund-raising telephone calls from his office in the White House. Investigators interviewed or obtained affidavits from approximately 250 witnesses, including the Vice President and members of his staff, White House, DNC and campaign officials, and more than 200 potential donors. Investigators also obtained numerous documents from many employees of the White House, the DNC, and the Clinton-Gore Re-election Campaign, as well as persons whom the Vice President called.
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The evidence gathered in this preliminary investigation indicates that the Vice President made calls from his office to approximately 45 people between the fall of 1995 and the spring of 1996 to raise money for the Democratic National Committee. However, the evidence found by the investigators shows that the Vice President solicited only soft money in these calls, not hard money.
    For example, no donors said the Vice President solicited hard money. Donors were given followup instructions on donating to DNC soft money accounts, and the amounts solicited exceeded hard money limits. Sometime after the 1994 elections, the DNC began to split some large checks into soft and hard money accounts without the donor's prior knowledge or consent, including several of the donations solicited by the Vice President. Investigators uncovered no evidence that the Vice President was aware of the DNC's practice or in any way knew that donations he solicited would make their way into hard money accounts. We are, however, continuing to investigate whether the DNC's practices violate any criminal laws.
    Finally, even if we were to assume that the Vice President had violated 18 U.S.C. section 607, the independent counsel statute prohibits me from asking for an independent counsel to investigate allegations that the Justice Department would not prosecute under its existing standards.
    Congress inserted this provision into the law so that Government officials would not be subject to different application of the law than other citizens. In this case, the Department's clear, long-standing policy is not to prosecute under 18 U.S.C. section 607 unless certain aggravating factors are present, such as coercion, knowing disregard of the law, substantial number of violations, or a significant disruption of Government functions. The investigation uncovered no evidence of any aggravating factors.
    With respect to Secretary O'Leary, on September 19th of this year, we began a preliminary investigation into former Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary. Allegations have been made that she may have violated Federal laws by soliciting a $25,000 contribution for a charitable organization in return for an official meeting with the visiting delegation of Chinese Petrochemical officials. After an extensive review of the documents and more than 40 interviews, including an interview of Johnny Chung, investigators developed no evidence that she had anything to do with the solicitation of the charitable donation. However, the Task Force will continue to review whether anyone else may have broken the law in connection with the solicitation and payment of the $25,000 donation.
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    These decisions were arrived at after thousands of hours of investigation and discussions with investigators, attorneys and senior officials at the Justice Department and the FBI. I am proud of their work. That includes Director Freeh, whose counsel I have regularly sought and whose advise I value highly. However, the decision to ask for an independent counsel is mine, and I alone am responsible for it under the law.
    I also want to make clear to this committee, and to the American people, that there are no constraints on the Task Force's ability to pursue the matters they are investigating. I have repeatedly told them to pursue every lead, explore every avenue, interview witnesses and ask any question that is relevant to the matters they are investigating. At any time the Task Force uncovers sufficient grounds to investigate whether a covered person may have committed a crime, that is specific and credible information, I will again commence a preliminary investigation under the act as I am required to do. In the meantime, we are continuing to pursue a vigorous and a thorough investigation.
    I urge everyone to study the documents that we have filed with the court and that I have enclosed with my testimony. These filings show how searching our inquiry is, how complex these matters can be, and how hard we have worked to do the right thing.
    As you know, Mr. Chairman, I have begun a preliminary investigation into the allegations concerning Secretary Babbitt. Again, however, I cannot comment on our ongoing investigation. I believe strongly, as I told you at the outset in the oversight process, and I want to answer your questions to the best of my ability and in a manner which safeguards the integrity of ongoing investigations, I must follow the long-standing Department policies which strictly limit what I can say about pending investigations. When an investigation interacts with the Independent Counsel Act, the importance of being circumspect is even greater. I am sure you all agree that we should do nothing to jeopardize the investigation or create the appearance that it is being affected by political pressure.
 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    At the same time, there is a unique public interest and congressional interest in any matter that could involve the Independent Counsel Act. That is why I welcome your questions.
    While our long-standing policy prevents me from telling you as much as you might like, I will do my best to answer your questions, based on information in the public domain, to explain how we interpret the act and to clarify our investigative policies. These policies have been applied by the career professionals at the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for years, and sometimes decades.
    Under Democrats and Republicans, Mr. Chairman, I am a career prosecutor and have worked with hundreds of career prosecutors. They are some of the finest attorneys in America. My only guiding star is my desire to follow every lead, to find the truth, and to apply the law the right way. I don't care where the facts lead, because I am going to follow them as far as and wherever they go, and take whatever action is required under the law. I care what the law says, and I will continue to abide by the law and the Constitution of the United States. That is the oath I took in 1993, and which I affirm to you today. I do care what our long-standing practices are, because they are time-tested and crafted to ensure that our work is guided by professionalism and not partisanship, guided by standards that apply in Democratic administrations and Republican administrations.
    I will close by saying this: In my 4 1/2 years in Washington, I have asked for independent counsels on several occasions and referred additional matters to them at least twice more. I have done so whenever the facts and the law said I should. On other occasions I have declined to do so. On those occasions, the law did not call for the appointment of an independent counsel. On each occasion I acted deliberately after thorough analysis. Each time I worked with career prosecutors and the senior staff of the FBI and the Department to separate the facts from the hype. Each time I carefully reviewed the evidence before making a decision, and each time my decision was based on the facts and the law, and nothing else. That is not going to change.
 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    We may disagree on the law, we may disagree on our construction of the facts, we may differ on the significance of a piece of evidence. That is what honest public debate is all about. In the end, Congress made the Attorney General responsible for these decisions. That is what the American people expect now. Under the law, every decision I will make will be based only on the facts and the law. That is what the American people expect and deserve, and it is the only way that I can uphold the very precious oath that I
have taken to the American people, that I shall bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, so help me God.
    Thank you very much. I look forward to answering your questions.
    Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Ms. Reno.
    [The prepared statement of Attorney General Janet Reno follows:]
    INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 292 TO 303 HERE
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]

    Mr. BURTON. As so often is the case, we received last night yet again another late production of White House documents. We were told that the White House learned of these—start the clock, please. Mr. Lantos was aware that the clock hadn't started.
    Now, last night, we received a late production of White House documents. We are told that the White House learned of these in early November, yet it took over a month to disclose those documents. White House spokesman Lanny Davis has claimed that you had those documents before December 2nd when you made your decision; is that correct? Did you have all the documents?
    Ms. RENO. I don't know whether, if this is the material just furnished to me, we had all of these documents, but I will be happy to check and see what we had and when we got them and let you know, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BURTON. We would like to provide those to you for the record and if you could let us know, we would appreciate that.
    Ms. RENO. Yes, sir.
    [The information referred to follows:]
    INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 695 TO 936 HERE
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]

    Mr. BURTON. Are you concerned, as we are, with the White House response to subpoenas? I sent a subpoena in March for videotapes, audiotapes, and any documents relating to this investigation, and we keep getting them dribbling in. We got more yesterday. Are you confident that your subpoenas have been responded to?
    Ms. RENO. I have expressed my concern in the past, and we continue to do everything we can to make sure that there is full disclosure.
    Mr. BURTON. But are you concerned about the slowness with which the White House has been responding to our subpoenas and yours?
    Ms. RENO. As I say, I have expressed my concern.
    Mr. BURTON. Thank you. Are you confident that you have received all relevant information from the Democrat National Committee?
    Ms. RENO. Again, I want to do everything I can to make sure that there has been full disclosure, and we will continue that effort.
    One of the things that I have discovered, Mr. Chairman, is the new mystery of the computer and what the computer can and can't produce and what can be stored and isn't stored on hard drive and soft drive, and so we continue to pursue that angle, as well as any other possible angle that we can to make sure that there is full production.
    Mr. BURTON. The problem, Ms. Reno, is that these documents were subpoenaed by you and the committee and others almost a year ago, and we still don't have all of the documents. I assume that you don't have all of the documents. Isn't this of some concern to you that it is taking that long? I mean, this could drag on for years.
 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. What I have mentioned, Mr. Chairman, is that I don't know whether I have all of these or not, but we will check and let you know. With respect to my concern, as I have said, and on a previous occasion, I was mad at one point, really mad.
    Mr. BURTON. Who advised you regarding your decision in appointing an independent counsel?
    Ms. RENO. Lawyers in the Department of Justice, Director Freeh, and lawyers who are on the Task Force.
    Mr. BURTON. Did chief of staff John Hogan or Bob Litt participate in that decision?
    Ms. RENO. Again, what I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, is that I want the people who advised me to make sure that they can talk without having to disclose their thought process, since I am the one that is responsible for this decision, and I am the one where the buck stops.
    Mr. BURTON. I understand. But let me just say that Mr. Hogan and Mr. Litt are both, they are both political appointees, and Mr. Lee Radek was appointed to head up the Public Integrity Section by Mr. Clinton. Did they advise you on this decision?
    Ms. RENO. Again, I am not going to discuss who advised me. I think it is important that they be able to talk freely and openly with me, because the decision is mine.
    Mr. BURTON. I understand, Ms. Attorney General, but the reason I am asking that is because this is a very important investigation, and you as Attorney General, if you are relying upon the judgment of people who have a political interest in the decisions, then we are concerned that your decision might be swayed one way or the other by politics and not by legal issues.
    Ms. RENO. I have relied on senior officials in the Department of Justice, both politically appointed and otherwise. I have relied on decisions made by a number of people. But it is my decision with respect to the independent counsel. I am the one who has to explain it.
 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BURTON. I understand. Mr. Radek has said that he thought that the independent counsel statute is an insult, and he now heads up the Public Integrity Section. Did he have any voice in this?
    Ms. RENO. Again, I—the decision is mine, the voice is mine.
    Mr. BURTON. Was Director Freeh in the room when you made your decision?
    Ms. RENO. As I talked to Director Freeh, I explained to him that I had struggled with the opinion—the decision overnight, I talked with him; I can't tell you precisely when I made the decision, whether he was in the room or not, because I had—you cannot imagine, Mr. Chairman, how much time and much effort and much thought I give to this. I wake up in the middle of the night trying to think of every new angle. I come up with a new idea and I come to the office and try to have it explored. I talk to Director Freeh before I make a final decision.
    Mr. BURTON. I understand.
    Ms. RENO. I probably don't make the decision until I have put my name on the paper, just to make sure that I try to consider every aspect, and I don't think he was in the room when I put my name on the paper.
    Mr. BURTON. I understand. And the next time you are up at 3 or 4 a.m., call me, because I will be up, too.
    Your recent independent counsel decision was based solely on the phone calls made by the President and the Vice President; is that correct?
    Ms. RENO. With respect to the President and the Vice President, of course. Secretary O'Leary's issue was different.
    Mr. BURTON. In fact, Vice President Gore has been quoted that he has been vindicated and he is glad it is over. But you have not closed down any lines of inquiry regarding the Vice President; have you?
 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. I have been very explicit and was explicit when I made the statement because I saw some statements from Congress that indicated that they thought I would be closing it down. I have made the statement that no one is exonerated, I am not closing it down, and I am going to continue to follow every lead.
    Mr. BURTON. Thank you.
    Your decision didn't have anything to do with anyone's knowledge at the White House or the DNC with respect to illegal foreign money coming into the DNC, then; your decision regarding this independent counsel at this time?
    Ms. RENO. The notification spells out the issue that we focused on and the issue that triggered the preliminary investigation. The matter to which you refer was not included in this preliminary investigation.
    Mr. BURTON. Ms. Reno, in this matter we have had over 65 people, 65 people that have taken the fifth amendment, many of them friends of the President, or fled the country. Have you ever experienced so many unavailable witnesses in any matter that you have prosecuted?
    Ms. RENO. I have never prosecuted a matter like this. I have never investigated a matter like this, and so I haven't seen a situation like this.
    Mr. BURTON. Sixty-five people, many friends of the President, taking the fifth amendment, hiding under their fifth amendment rights, fleeing the country so they can't be questioned——
    Ms. RENO. I can't comment on your investigation, Mr. Chairman. All I can tell you is in my investigation I have never handled one like this, so I have not seen one like this.
    Mr. BURTON. OK. Does it concern you that the number of these individuals who have taken the fifth amendment or fled the country are close associates or friends of the President?
 Page 53       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. Mr. Chairman, I would not comment on continuing matters that the Task Force is pursuing, because that again lays out the road map for what I am doing or not doing.
    Mr. BURTON. Now, totally apart from the mandatory sections that triggered the independent counsel statute, there is a section in the independent counsel law that allows you to appoint an independent counsel when you have conflicts in pursuing a case; is that correct?
    Ms. RENO. It says that if there is—if I have specific and credible information about a noncovered person, the investigation of whom would create a conflict of interest, I may seek the appointment of an independent counsel.
    Mr. BURTON. So you could in this case seek an independent counsel if you so chose?
    Ms. RENO. If I felt it was triggered.
    Mr. BURTON. And that is section 592 of the statute. You don't need to look it up, that is section 592 of the statute.
    In 1993, when you spoke in favor——
    Ms. RENO. The specific section is 591(c) that provides for the discretionary conflict.
    Mr. BURTON. I believe it also is 592, but we won't quibble about that.
    In 1993, when you spoke in favor of the independent counsel statute, you said, and I quote,

    The role of declining to prosecute a high Government official is, I suggest, as important a goal of the independent counsel process as any prosecution. The credibility and public confidence engendered by the fact that an independent and impartial outsider has examined the evidence and has concluded that the prosecution is not warranted serves to clear a public official's name in a way that no Justice Department investigation ever could.
 Page 54       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    This was on May 14, 1993. By keeping this investigation in political hands instead of an independent counsel's, aren't you undermining public confidence in this investigation?
    Ms. RENO. I don't think so, sir, because if it is pursued according to the independent counsel statute provisions, it assumes, and the independent counsel statute presumes, and Congress presumes, that there was a conflict of interest with respect to the covered persons, but it also provided that there must be specific and credible information against the covered person, as well as against a person for whom a discretionary conflict might arise.
    We try to review each matter to determine whether there is specific and credible information and make a judgment accordingly. If you did otherwise—and Congress talks in its legislative history about not lowering the threshold too much, otherwise, I would suggest that you have the fear of an independent counsel statute being triggered on any occasion, regardless of whether the evidence is sufficient to trigger it.
    Mr. BURTON. I understand your reasoning, although I take issue with it, but it is correct that you could petition to appoint an independent counsel under the law if you so chose?
    Ms. RENO. If I believed that there was a conflict.
    Mr. BURTON. In fact, Mr. Freeh in his memo to you recommended an independent counsel and a course of action which is entirely in keeping with the spirit and the letter of the independent counsel statute; isn't it?
    Ms. RENO. Again, Director Freeh and I have suggested to you in our letter why it would not be appropriate to discuss the details of that memorandum.
    Mr. BURTON. But there was logic and legal reasons why in his letter. You don't have to give us the contents, but there were logical and legal reasons why he thought an independent counsel was warranted.
 Page 55       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. Director Freeh, as I understand it, will in his statement tell you that he thought an independent counsel was warranted.
    Mr. BURTON. But there were legal and reasonable reasons why he suggested that. I mean, he must have researched it. You disagreed, obviously.
    Ms. RENO. I disagreed with him.
    Mr. BURTON. But weren't there legal reasons and logical reasons why he thought an independent counsel was necessary? Was it off the wall?
    Ms. RENO. If it were Louis Freeh, he would make one decision. If it's me, I thought another decision was reasonable.
    Mr. BURTON. I am talking about the basis for his recommendation, Madam Attorney General.
    Ms. RENO. In determining whether a conflict exists, it is not Director Freeh's conflict, it is mine.
    Mr. BURTON. So it was a conflict that he was talking about in his letter.
    Ms. RENO. Again, if the issue is conflict, it is my conflict.
    Mr. BURTON. I know. But you just alluded to that part of his memo by saying——
    Ms. RENO. Do you have the memo, Mr. Chairman? You—if you have the memo, then we won't worry about it.
    Mr. BURTON. But you just alluded to something that was in the memo and that was the conflict, so we now have that.
    Ms. RENO. No, sir. You asked about a conflict, and I don't know what you're reading from, but you specifically asked about a conflict and I simply responded by pointing out to you that if the issue is a conflict, it is not Louie Freeh's, it's mine.
 Page 56       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BURTON. Well, I will reread the question and you will see if I said anything about a conflict. In fact, Mr. Freeh in his memo to you recommended an independent counsel and a course of action which is entirely in keeping with the spirit and the letter of the independent counsel statute; isn't it? It says nothing about conflict, you are the one that said that, that is why I raised that issue.
    Ms. RENO. Does the independent counsel statute give anybody a course of action other than by virtue of a conflict?
    Mr. BURTON. No.
    Ms. RENO. OK, sir. Thank you.
    Mr. BURTON. But the point is you raised it, but we won't quibble.
    Didn't Director Freeh present a case based on the law and facts for an independent counsel?
    Ms. RENO. Director Freeh—as I have told you, Mr. Chairman, I want the people around me to be able to talk freely, voluntarily, and openly. I don't think that I should say what people who work with me volunteer, when the decision has to be mine. I am responsible for it.
    Mr. BURTON. Do you think Director Freeh presented an unconstitutional interpretation of the law that would be struck down if you were to follow his recommendations?
    Ms. RENO. I would not comment on what Director Freeh said to me.
    Mr. BURTON. Well, I don't understand. How is this going to jeopardize your investigation if you comment on the constitutionality of his position in the memo? That has nothing to do with the investigation.
 Page 57       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. Mr. Chairman, I have a conference room and there are so many occasions where I have had lawyers from all parts of the Justice Department around the table in that conference room. I think that they know that they can speak openly, with candor, with good give and take, and sometimes there are eight lawyers there and there are eight different opinions. I don't want those lawyers to feel that every time they give me their best and most candid advice they are going to be hauled before a congressional committee to discuss an ongoing investigation.
    Mr. BURTON. Well, that is not my question. Let me read it to you again.
    Do you think Director Freeh presented an unconstitutional interpretation of the law that will be struck down if you were to follow his recommendation?
    Ms. RENO. I give you the same answer, sir. I think that I have a responsibility to make the decision and to not comment on the opinions given to me in the deliberation process with respect to ongoing matters.
    Mr. BURTON. So this committee and the Congress do not have a right to know whether or not you thought that his recommendation was constitutional or not?
    Ms. RENO. If you have a right to know about these matters, then you have a right to know everything.
    Mr. BURTON. If the President asked—well, but we are not talking about things that might be redacted or should be redacted that are before a grand jury or any evidence that would lead to a criminal indictment. We are not talking about that. We are trying to find out why that decision was made.
    Ms. RENO. I will tell you why the decision was made.
    Mr. BURTON. There is this difference between you and the FBI Director, and whether or not you thought his recommendation was unconstitutional.
 Page 58       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. I will tell you why the decision was made.
    Mr. BURTON. Because you wanted to make it, and you made it.
    Ms. RENO. I made the decision because the Congress of the United States provides that it is the Attorney General who will make the decision. I considered the information from everyone, and the reason I made the decision is contained in the notification filed with the special division.
    Mr. BURTON. If the President asked you to appoint an independent counsel, would you do so?
    Ms. RENO. It would depend on the circumstances.
    Mr. BURTON. Well, isn't that what you did when you appointed a special counsel on the Whitewater matter? I mean, after all, you opposed it for a long time until the President gave his approval.
    Ms. RENO. As I indicated on a number of occasions in that instance, the Congress had not re-enacted the independent counsel statute. It had, what do you call it, lapsed, or sunsetted, so we were in an interim period where there was no independent counsel statute.
    Mr. BURTON. You are aware in 1986, that President Reagan called for an independent counsel in the Iran-Contra matter, even though there were no covered persons involved, and he did so in the public interest. Are you aware of that?
    Ms. RENO. No, sir, I am not.
    Mr. BURTON. You are not aware of Iran-Contra?
    Ms. RENO. I am aware of Iran-Contra. I am not aware of what President Reagan did.
    Mr. BURTON. Well, it was publicly disclosed; it was in all of the papers. You just didn't read that?
 Page 59       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. I may well have read it.
    Mr. BURTON. You don't recall, OK.
    Do you recall that in 1993, you stated that the Iran-Contra investigation, ''could not have been conducted under the supervision of the Attorney General and concluded with any public confidence in its thoroughness and impartiality.'' You said you didn't know about it, but in 1993 you commented about it.
    Ms. RENO. I don't know what I—I am well aware of the investigation. But I am not aware of or have no recollection of President Reagan's calling for the appointment of one.
    Mr. BURTON. But you recall this comment that you made in 1993?
    Ms. RENO. Yes, I do.
    Mr. BURTON. And do you stand by that comment?
    Ms. RENO. Yes, I do.
    Mr. BURTON. I will read it again.
    Ms. RENO. You don't have to. I stand by it.
    Mr. BURTON. Well, I will read it again just for my own edification.
    The Iran-Contra investigation, ''could not have been conducted under the supervision of the Attorney General and concluded with any public confidence in its thoroughness and impartiality,'' and you stand by that?
    Ms. RENO. Uh-huh.
    Mr. BURTON. Oliver North was not a covered person.
    Ms. RENO. That is correct.
    Mr. BURTON. And yet they appointed an independent counsel because they thought that there was the appearance of a conflict.
 Page 60       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Isn't public confidence in investigations of high ranking public officials the main rationale of the independent counsel statute?
    Ms. RENO. I think there is a considerable history, and I would refer you to it.
    Mr. BURTON. Well, wasn't the statute enacted to provide public confidence in prosecutions and declinations to prosecute high level public officials?
    Ms. RENO. I think that is certainly one of the reasons.
    Mr. BURTON. Well, when you supported a special counsel then, an independent counsel on the Whitewater matter, didn't you do so, at lease in part, because the McDougals were friends of the President and the First Lady?
    Ms. RENO. They had a business relationship with the President and the First Lady, and I think again I spelled it out in the referral.
    Mr. BURTON. But it was because of the provision that we have been discussing here today?
    Ms. RENO. I do not have the language with me, but I would refer you to the notification to the court.
    Mr. BURTON. Didn't you say it would be an inherent conflict for you to investigate the Whitewater matter?
    Ms. RENO. If you could get the exact language of the notification, we can be more accurate.
    Mr. BURTON. Well, I believe that is what was said.
    Ms. Reno, isn't this the first time that Director Freeh found himself trying to maintain the integrity of the FBI?
    I will read this quote to you.

 Page 61       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The circumstances of this matter called for the appointment of an independent counsel. Because of the investigation by the Department of Justice, allegations of violations of criminal law by James B. McDougal and other individuals associated with the President and Mrs. Reagan would present a political conflict of interest.

    Ms. RENO. You said Reagan.
    Mr. BURTON. Pardon me.

    President Clinton, would present a political conflict of interest. I hereby request that the court appoint Robert B. Fisk, Jr., so that he may continue his ongoing investigation without disruption and with the full independence provided by the act.

    So you thought there was a conflict because of the McDougal's ties with the President. I mean that is your quote.
    Ms. RENO. That is correct.
    Mr. BURTON. Now, Ms. Reno, isn't this the first time that Director Freeh found himself trying to maintain the integrity of the FBI's investigation? As a result of a Washington Post story back in February on the Chinese connection, White House Counsel Charles Ruff requested documents from the Justice Department. Director Freeh voiced strong reservations about giving the White House intelligence information that might tip off the White House to the investigation. Yet, despite Mr. Freeh's opposition, attempts were made by the Department of Justice and you to send certain information to the White House.
    While Director Freeh was out of the country in Egypt, White House and DOJ political appointees forced FBI agents to provide the information Freeh had objected to. FBI agents had to call the FBI Director in Egypt to prevent this material from being sent to the White House. It was only FBI Director Freeh's 11th hour call from the Middle East which prevented this information from being forwarded to the White House, which was very sensitive.
 Page 62       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Do you recall that?
    Ms. RENO. What I do recall is that I said, what does Louis think? They said, he is in Cairo. He won't be available until the next morning. I said, get him as fast as you can, because I want to talk to him before I make a decision.
    Mr. BURTON. Well, I want to—I had some personal involvement in this and investigated it, and I talked personally to the people at the FBI, and they——
    Ms. RENO. But you didn't talk to me, and you didn't talk to Director Freeh, and you weren't in the room when I talked to Director Freeh.
    Mr. BURTON. I did talk to Director Freeh, so let me finish.
    Ms. RENO. OK.
    Mr. BURTON. What happened was—according to the people I talked to, was that Louis Freeh told the people, your chief of staff, that this information should not be given to the White House in his opinion. He left and went to Egypt after giving that advice, and after he left for Egypt and was there, his chief deputy was summoned to the Justice Department and was told that that information must be given to them.
    He then came over to the Justice Department and gave that information, and on his way back in the car, he said to an associate, I am not sure we should have given that information to the Justice Department without having first talked to Louis.
    They called Louis in Egypt, and then Louis called you immediately and said that he didn't think that information should be given to the White House, and then you didn't give it to them.
    Ms. RENO. I think the best thing to do——
    Mr. BURTON. I can't hear you.
    Ms. RENO. I think the best thing to do, rather than get into this hassle, is have Director Freeh come up, and let's talk about it.
 Page 63       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BURTON. I will ask Director Freeh about this later, but I will just tell you that the information we have does not jibe with what you just told us.
    Ms. RENO. Well, since you weren't there, I can understand it might not, and since you haven't asked me about it before this and have already reached a judgment, I can understand why it might, but what I would suggest——
    Mr. BURTON. I talked to the FBI people who were involved directly.
    Ms. RENO. If you want to talk to the FBI people, let's bring Director Freeh up here.
    Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, why don't we let the FBI Director answer the question which has just been raised.
    Mr. COX. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. BURTON. We will ask Director Freeh that question when he comes before the committee later.
    Mr. LANTOS. Then don't interrupt the Attorney General.
    Mr. BURTON. I have the time. You will have your time later.
    Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, regular order.
    Ms. RENO. What I would say, Mr. Chairman, is to try to get to the truth of it all, you should hear from the people involved. We are both here, and I refer you to your inquiry of Director Freeh at the time, because I can tell you, since you have never talked to me about it before, I am the one that talked to him, I am the one that had to wait overnight until we could find him in Cairo on his STU phone, and I know what I talked to him about, and I know the decision that I made, and——
    Mr. BURTON. I understand that. I understand that you did make that decision, but the thing that I disagree with and the information that I have that contradicts that is that the FBI associate of Mr. Freeh who talked to him on the way back from the Justice Department, said, we'd better talk to Louis about this. He called Louis Freeh and then Louis Freeh initiated the call back to you.
 Page 64       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
    Mr. BURTON. Suspend the time.
    The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
    Mr. BARRETT. Would you entertain a motion to—or would a motion to reconsider the placing of Mr. Freeh at the table with Ms. Reno, would that be timely?
    Mr. BURTON. The committee has already voted on that and we will not reconsider it at this time.
    Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, my question is, would it be appropriate, under the rules——
    Mr. BURTON. You are not stating a valid point of order.
    Mr. BARRETT. My question is, when would it be appropriate for a motion for reconsideration?
    Mr. BURTON. No.
    Mr. BARRETT. No?
    My question is, when would it be appropriate for a motion for reconsideration?
    Mr. BURTON. We have already voted on it.
    Mr. BARRETT. No, we have not voted on a motion for reconsideration. What I am asking you is, when would it be appropriate to consider a motion for reconsideration? That motion failed on a 12 to 12 vote. It is my understanding of the rules that on a tie vote, any Member can move for reconsideration, and I would like to move for reconsideration.
    My question to you, Mr. Chairman, would be, when would that motion be appropriate? When would you entertain that motion?
    Mr. BURTON. I am advised by counsel that only a Member who voted for the motion can move to reconsider. And we will——
 Page 65       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. LANTOS. We all voted for it, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I did vote for it, so I would move that we reconsider that vote.
    Mr. BURTON. We will entertain that at the conclusion of my questioning.
    Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. BURTON. Now, with respect to Webster Hubbell, Madam Attorney General, don't you believe you would have an inherent conflict investigating matters regarding Mr. Hubbell, who was your No. 3 Justice Department official and ran the Department of Justice with you in 1993 and 1994?
    Ms. RENO. I don't know what you mean by inherent conflict. It would depend on the circumstances, sir.
    Mr. BURTON. Well, you said he was a friend, and when he was about to be indicted and left the Justice Department, you indicated that you didn't think he was guilty or hadn't done anything wrong and that he was a paragon of virtue. If you want me to, I will read exactly what you said about him.
    Ms. RENO. I don't know whether I called him a paragon.
    Mr. BURTON. Well, but you made some pretty strong statements.
    Ms. RENO. I did indeed, sir.
    Mr. BURTON. In any event, do you think that there would be a conflict of you investigating his relationship with a number of the principals involved in this investigation and/or the President?
    Ms. RENO. It would depend on the circumstances, sir.
    Mr. BURTON. In other words, Webb Hubbell, who was a friend of—who received $100,000 from the Riadys, the Lippo Group, after 10 meetings at the White House involving the President of the United States, James Riady, John Huang, and Webb Hubbell, you don't think that those three, many of whom are being investigated for large sums of money being illegally funneled into the DNC and into the President's re-election committee and into the President's Legal Defense Fund, you don't believe that there might be a conflict of you investigating him?
 Page 66       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. What I have said, sir, is that as we continue investigations, I cannot discuss them, but if at any time the statute is triggered, I will do so.
    Mr. BURTON. I know, but what I can't understand is why you can't give us an answer about whether or not you think, because of your relationship with Webb Hubbell at the Justice Department, because of his relationship with the President, his golfing buddy and long-time friend, because of his relationship and employment by the Riadys, who have fled the country, James and Mochtar Riady, and because of his ties to Charlie Trie, because of his ties to John Huang, who has taken the fifth amendment, whom your Department, I don't believe, has even contacted, you don't think there is a conflict?
    Ms. RENO. The issue is, sir, whether there is specific and credible information against a person that relates to Camcon. There are also matters that other independent counsel—other independent counsel is reviewing. I cannot discuss these, and I cannot discuss how an ongoing investigation, either by me or by an independent counsel is being conducted.
    Mr. BURTON. Now, let me just make a comment then. I think on its face, the American people would think that there would be a conflict of interest, and for that reason, in order for there to be a fair and impartial investigation of this whole mess, there ought to be a person appointed as an independent counsel who has no ax to grind, who has no ties to Webb Hubbell or John Huang or to the President or anybody else, so we can get to the bottom of it. For you to keep hiding behind this thing saying, well, you will consider it, I think it is a dereliction of responsibility.
    Ms. RENO. I am not hiding, Mr. Chairman. I am trying to do my duty under the independent counsel statute and under the law to conduct an investigation in a professional way, taking it wherever it leads me, and I will continue to do so.
    I also have an obligation under the independent counsel statute to trigger it in certain situations and I have the discretion in others, and in each instance I have asked for an independent counsel on at least four occasions. I have referred other matters, I have used the discretionary provision, I have demonstrated an ability to it, but I am going to do it based on what I understand the evidence and the law to be.
 Page 67       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BURTON. You said earlier that you had the ability and the authority under section 591 or 592 of the statute to appoint an independent counsel if you felt that there was a conflict. You said that earlier in your testimony.
    Ms. RENO. I said something else, too, sir—if there was specific and credible information against a noncovered person, the investigation of whom I felt created a conflict.
    Mr. BURTON. Well, that same situation occurred in Iran Contra. And the Attorney General, Ed Meese at that time, said even though Ollie North was not a covered person, in order for there not to be any appearance or question about propriety, he appointed an independent counsel; and the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan, concurred. Here we have you saying, you are going to take care of it yourself, even though there is an apparent, in many of our minds, maybe not your mind, there is an apparent conflict of interest that is visible to most people in America, I believe, and as a result, you just continue to say, I am going to handle it. I don't see any conflict, I don't see any problem, so we are going to proceed ahead. I just don't—and the President, of course, is not saying anything.
    Ms. RENO. What I have indicated previously and have indicated and will indicate here is that the legislative history, as we read it, of the independent counsel statute, as it has been reenacted, does not provide for an independent counsel when there is an appearance of conflict. There must be an actual conflict.
    Mr. BURTON. Well, does it trouble you at all that a number of your Democrat colleagues, like President Carter and Senator Moynihan and others, feel that you should appoint an independent counsel? Does it trouble you at all that there is that big difference?
    Ms. RENO. ''Trouble'' is not the word I think, Mr. Chairman. What I strive to do is to listen to everyone who has an opinion that is based on the evidence and the law. When people start talking to me about polls, I say, forget it.
 Page 68       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BURTON. I am not talking about polls.
    Ms. RENO. When they start talking to me about how many editorials have been written about me, I say, forget it. I try to do it, and one of the people, for example, that I talked to, is Director Freeh.
    Mr. BURTON. OK.
    Ms. RENO. I listen to others. I have appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Feingold has given me his thoughts on it, and I have tried to take those into consideration. But it is not Senator Feingold's decision, it is not President Clinton's decision, it is mine; and one of the problems I have, Mr. Chairman, is that if I had to please everybody and make sure that everybody agreed with me, we would never get anything done.
    Mr. BURTON. Well, my time is running out and I want to get one more thing on the record here, and I will grant you an extra 30 seconds if we have to, because I think it is important. I want to read to you:
    June 20, 1994, John Huang called Mark Middleton and asked for a meeting for June 21, 1994.
    June 21, 1994, John Huang and James Riady were cleared into the White House twice: 4:45 p.m., they met with Mark Middleton, who was then working in the Office of the White House Chief of Staff; 6:50 p.m., they went to a White House reception on the South Lawn hosted by the President.
    The next day, June 22nd, John Huang and James Riady again met with Mark Middleton in the White House.
    June 23rd, Riady had a breakfast meeting with Webb Hubbell, who at this time was under investigation by the independent counsel. June 23rd, after breakfast, Riady, accompanied by John Huang, returned to the White House to meet with President Clinton.
    June 23rd, after this meeting, Riady returned to his hotel room at the Hay-Adams and placed two calls to Indonesia and then placed calls to the White House Chief of Staff's office where Middleton worked. He also called Webb Hubbell: 10:01, first call to Indonesia; 10:02, the second call to Indonesia; 11:04, call to Webb Hubbell; 11:05, call to the White House Chief of Staff's office.
 Page 69       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    June 23rd, Riady had lunch with Webb Hubbell at the Hay-Adams Hotel one block from the White House.
    June 24th, Huang and Riady went back to the White House for another meeting with Mark Middleton. June 24th, Mark Middleton, John Huang and members of Riady's family had lunch in the White House mess. June 24th, Riady met again with Webb Hubbell.
    June 25th, Riady, John Huang, Mark Middleton attended the President's weekly radio address.
    June 26th, a Lippo company, Hong Kong-China Limited paid Webb Hubbell $100,000.
    July 2nd, President Clinton calls Webb Hubbell at his home at 10:16 p.m.
    July 1994, John Huang, a principal with the Lippo Group, who gave $100,000 to Mr. Hubbell, goes to work as Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Department of Commerce.
    And February 1995, Mark Middleton left the White House to start his own business specializing in Asian business affairs.
    And you don't think there are any conflicts with any of these people and their ties to the President and your investigation?
    [Exhibits 276 and 276–1 follow:]
    INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 304 TO 305 HERE
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]

    Ms. RENO. Again, I am conducting the investigation based on what I understand the evidence and the law to be. At this point, I have not triggered the independent counsel statute except as I have previously indicated to you.
    Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Madam Attorney General.
    Ms. RENO. But I will tell you this. I just wish I could tell you everything that I was doing and that the Task Force is doing in trying to pursue allegations. The impression is that we are not doing anything, but the fact is, we are, and we are going to continue to pursue every lead until we get to where it takes us.
 Page 70       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BURTON. Our committee will figure in this investigation as well.
    I now yield to Mr.——
    Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman from——
    Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, based on your statements, I would move that we reconsider the vote upon which the request was made to have Mr. Freeh and Ms. Reno appear at the same time, and if that is not requested, I would have an alternative motion.
    Mr. BURTON. You will have to forgive me. My parliamentarian evidently misspoke. He said a motion to reconsider must be made by a Member who was on the prevailing side of the vote, and that would be a Member on our side of the aisle.
    Mr. BARRETT. I would have an alternative motion, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. BURTON. I don't see any Member who wants to reconsider on our side.
    Mr. BARRETT. My alternative motion is based on the statements of Ms. Reno and Mr. Freeh. Rather than having Mr. Freeh give his formal testimony at this time, I would move that he be permitted to answer questions that pertain to statements purportedly made by him.
    Mr. BURTON. That's not a motion that we can entertain at this time.
    Mr. BARRETT. Why is that, Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. BURTON. It's not a regular motion under the rules of the committee of the House.
    Mr. Lantos, you are recognized for 30 minutes.
    Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I would appeal the ruling of the Chair.
 Page 71       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman appeals the ruling of the Chair. All those in favor of the ruling of the Chair signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed to the ruling of the Chair signify by saying no.
    Mr. BURTON. In the opinion of the——
    Mr. BARRETT. I ask for a roll call.
    Mr. BURTON. A roll call has been ordered. A roll call will be granted. The clerk will call the roll.
    The CLERK. Mr. Burton.
    Mr. BURTON. No.
    The CLERK. Mr. Burton votes no.
    Mr. Gilman.
    Mr. GILMAN. No.
    The CLERK. Mr. Gilman votes no.
    Mr. Hastert.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mrs. Morella.
    Mrs. MORELLA. No.
    The CLERK. Mrs. Morella votes no.
    Mr. Shays.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Schiff.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Cox.
    Mr. COX. No.
    The CLERK. Mr. Cox votes no.
 Page 72       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. McHugh.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Horn.
    Mr. HORN. No.
    The CLERK. Mr. Horn votes no.
    Mr. Mica.
    Mr. MICA. No.
    The CLERK. Mr. Mica votes no.
    Mr. Davis of Virginia.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. McIntosh.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Souder.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Scarborough.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Shadegg.
    Mr. SHADEGG. No.
    The CLERK. Mr. Shadegg votes no.
    Mr. LaTourette.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Sanford.
    [No response.]
 Page 73       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The CLERK. Mr. Sununu.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Sessions.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Pappas.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Snowbarger.
    Mr. SNOWBARGER. No.
    The CLERK. Mr. Snowbarger votes no.
    Mr. Barr.
    Mr. BARR. No.
    The CLERK. Mr. Barr votes no.
    Mr. Miller.
    Mr. MILLER. No.
    The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes no.
    Mr. Waxman.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Lantos.
    Mr. LANTOS. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Lantos votes aye.
    Mr. Wise.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Owens.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Towns.
 Page 74       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Kanjorski.
    Mr. KANJORSKI. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Kanjorski votes aye.
    Mr. Condit.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Sanders.
    Mr. SANDERS. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Sanders votes aye.
    Mrs. Maloney.
    Mrs. MALONEY. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mrs. Maloney votes aye.
    Mr. Barrett.
    Mr. BARRETT. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Barrett votes aye.
    Ms. Norton.
    Ms. NORTON. Aye.
    The CLERK. Ms. Norton votes aye.
    Mr. Fattah.
    Mr. FATTAH. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Fattah votes aye.
    Mr. Cummings.
    Mr. CUMMINGS. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Cummings votes aye.
    Mr. Kucinich.
 Page 75       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. KUCINICH. Yes.
    The CLERK. Mr. Kucinich votes yes.
    Mr. Blagojevich.
    Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Blagojevich votes aye.
    Mr. Davis of Illinois.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Tierney.
    Mr. TIERNEY. Yes.
    The CLERK. Mr. Tierney votes yes.
    Mr. Turner.
    Mr. TURNER. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Turner votes aye.
    Mr. Allen.
    Mr. ALLEN. Aye.
    The CLERK. Mr. Allen votes aye.
    Mr. Ford.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Hastert.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Shays.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Schiff.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
 Page 76       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No.
    The CLERK. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no.
    Mr. McHugh.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Virginia.
    Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. No.
    The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Virginia votes no.
    Mr. McIntosh.
    Mr. MCINTOSH. No.
    The CLERK. Mr. McIntosh votes no.
    Mr. Souder.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Scarborough.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. LaTourette.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Sanford.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Sununu.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Sessions.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Pappas.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Waxman.
 Page 77       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Wise.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Owens.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Towns.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Condit.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Ford.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Hastert.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Shays.
    [No response.]
    The CLERK. Mr. Schiff.
    [No response.]
    Mr. BURTON. The clerk has called the roll twice. I think that's sufficient, unless somebody——
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. BURTON. How is Mr. LaTourette recorded?
    The CLERK. Mr. LaTourette is not recorded.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. I would like to be recorded as no, please.
 Page 78       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The CLERK. Mr. LaTourette votes no.
    Mr. BURTON. The clerk will report the tally.
    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman there are 13 ayes and 14 nays.
    Mr. BURTON. The motion is defeated. Mr. Lantos you are recognized for 30 minutes.
    Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman before I begin my questioning, I respectfully suggest since our distinguished Attorney General has been on the witness stand for over 2 hours, we take a 5 minute recess as a matter of elementary courtesy.
    Ms. RENO. I'm fine.
    Mr. LANTOS. I know.
    Mr. BURTON. Some of the Members might not be.
    Mr. LANTOS. I don't think it will be inappropriate to take a 5 minute recess.
    Mr. BURTON. The Chair declares a 5 minute recess.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. BURTON. The committee will reconvene.
    I feel sorry for you reporters down there. You must be getting leg cramps. You will have to start doing deep knee bends to get in shape.
    Would we clear the aisles, please, and close the doors. Can we get the people in the aisles to either leave the room or sit down.
    Mr. Lantos, you are recognized for 30 minutes.
    Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me welcome our distinguished Attorney General. It seems that Mr. Burton and some of my colleagues on the other side are fixated on the notion that since the President appoints you to your job, by definition you are incapable of conducting an investigation that involves the President.
 Page 79       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And leaving aside the issue that, of course, the law clearly gives you the sole authority to determine whether you call for an independent counsel or not, and that is a law that we passed, not the Attorney General, so if we have any quarrel with that law, we should amend that law or repeal it, but not harass and badger the Attorney General for following the law. I would like to sort of speculate on this alleged conflict of interest.
    A few weeks ago Mr. Burton alleged on national television that the White House had altered the videotapes it was providing to congressional investigators. Since that time, White House career military employees testified under oath that the tapes were not altered.
    Senator Thompson stated on television just this past weekend that he thoroughly investigated that matter and concluded that the tapes had not been altered. And when, at our last hearing, Mr. Burton was asked to produce any evidence to support his unsubstantiated allegation, he was unable to produce a single shred of evidence.
    But if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really believe that you lack the integrity and judgment to determine whether or not a frivolous allegation is true, under that interpretation, whatever allegation is made concerning the President or the Vice President, you would have to disqualify yourself because you are incapable of making a judgment concerning the validity of the claim.
    It seems to me that this absurd interpretation would mean that when allegations are leveled against a Member of Congress, for instance, you would immediately need to appoint an independent counsel. A lobbyist alleged that Mr. Burton tried to extort campaign funds from him. Mr. Burton's favorite newspaper, the New York Times, reported that he solicited an invitation to the Pebble Beach golf tournament sponsored by AT&T at a time when AT&T had pending business before this committee. The Hill, the publication here on Capitol Hill, reported that Mr. Burton accepted illegal campaign contributions from tax-exempt religious institutions.
    Well, it seems that you aren't capable of conducting an investigation with respect to the President, with respect to the Vice President, members of the Cabinet, Members of Congress. And the notion that we have heard ad nauseam this morning, that somehow the inherent conflict by virtue of your appointment to your position by the President makes it impossible for you to be objective and conduct an independent investigation, leads me to explore the history of your relationship to the President. So may I ask a few specific questions.
 Page 80       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    How well did you know President Clinton before you were appointed Attorney General?
    Ms. RENO. I had never met him. I had only met Mrs. Clinton briefly.
    Mr. LANTOS. You had never met the President prior to your——
    Ms. RENO. Until I met with him, I think it was the night of February 9th, prior to his nomination of me on February 11th.
    Mr. LANTOS. So it's probably fair to say, on the basis of your testimony, that you are not long-time friends?
    Ms. RENO. That's correct.
    Mr. LANTOS. Now, since you have served as a member of his Cabinet, how close has been your social relationship? Would you consider yourself one of President Clinton's confidantes? Are you frequently participating in the various social activities of the President and the First Lady? Do you consider yourself a close personal friend or confidante of the President?
    Ms. RENO. No, I do not, and I do not socialize with them.
    Mr. LANTOS. How about the Vice President? What has been the extent of your personal relationship with Mrs. Gore and the Vice President? How close is your social relationship; how frequent is that relationship?
    Ms. RENO. I had not met the Vice President before the day that I was nominated, and I had only met Mrs. Gore briefly. I would characterize my relationship with them as the same as with the President.
    But in deference to the chairman, I'd really like to make clear what my position is. Under the Independent Counsel Act, no matter how well or how little I know the President, I am required to trigger the independent counsel statute provided—and there is—I have no discretion on that. But what I have to do is to make a judgment as to whether the evidence is specific and credible to indicate that there may have been a violation of Federal law.
 Page 81       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    That's the decision I have to make. And it doesn't—when it goes to the President and Vice President, who are covered persons, it—I don't have discretion. I have got to do it when I reach that threshold. And from my reading of the history of the independent counsel statute, Congress put that threshold there so that everything was not referred that might—anything that was frivolous would not trigger the statute.
    Mr. LANTOS. I very much appreciate your elaborating on this point.
    Let me ask specifically, has the President or the Vice President put any pressure on you directly, indirectly, through others with respect to the question of appointing an independent counsel?
    Ms. RENO. None whatsoever.
    Mr. LANTOS. Your testimony under oath, Madam Attorney General, is that there has been no attempt by the President or the Vice President to influence your decision with respect to this matter?
    Ms. RENO. That's correct, sir.
    Mr. LANTOS. May I ask, and I apologize for the personal nature of this question, but I think it's necessary given the context, are you expecting, after you conclude your very distinguished tenure as Attorney General, to look perhaps for an ambassadorial appointment or another high-level appointment by this administration that might influence your objectivity and independence with respect to this issue?
    Ms. RENO. No, sir, I'm not. I'm looking to getting in my truck and going across the country and seeing all the places that I haven't had the chance to really explore.
    Mr. LANTOS. Well, if and when that time comes, and we all hope it will be a long time in the future, we all will wish you well.
 Page 82       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    But I think it was important to underscore these items, because the sickeningly persistent innuendo, Madam Attorney General, that you are protecting your old friend Bill Clinton and your old friend Al Gore because of your close personal relationship with them, or because of your political aspirations in the future, have to be put to rest.
    You are, without question, one of the most nonpartisan, nonpolitical public servants in a highly politicized city, and we are all enormously fortunate to have you in the position as Attorney General.
    Let me raise a question concerning the release of FBI Director Freeh's memorandum to you. I read the letter that you jointly sent to Mr. Burton. I wonder if you would care to elaborate on the reasons why you feel this request was inappropriate and why it would, in fact, interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation?
    Ms. RENO. As I said at the outset, Congressman Lantos, I very much respect and think that—and I think the oversight function is very important. I want to try to work with everybody concerned to make sure that we honor that function and that responsibility of Congress. But when it relates to a pending investigation or a pending prosecution, that becomes a very difficult line to walk.
    And it is important for three reasons. One, the responsibility for investigation and prosecution lies within the executive branch. We've got to present it in the court. We've got to do what's right. And having been a prosecutor, come January 20th it will be for 20 years in my life, it is sometimes a very difficult decision, but it is one that is an important decision for the American people. It is terribly important that politics not be a part of it. Thus, I think, in this instance, it is really important that we pursue this just based on the evidence and the law.
    If I were to disclose what we were planning to do or what was being suggested in an investigation, and the road map was out there for all the people who were the subject of the investigation to see, nobody would—with common sense would suggest that that's a good idea. You don't tell the people you're investigating how you are going to investigate them.
 Page 83       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Second, as I have said on a number of occasions, it is very important for me to make sure that my subordinates in the Department of Justice know that they can speak freely to me; that I'm the one that's going to be responsible for the decision; that the buck stops with me and that they can speak freely and openly, and that I don't want yes people around me. And I can say proudly I haven't had yes people around me because I sure get different views on a lot of occasions.
    If Congress can come into a pending investigation and say, we want to know all about it, that creates a real issue of Congress, who has other responsibilities, not those of investigation and prosecution for the determination of whether a crime has been committed. That creates a situation where you have an outside influence in an investigation where it just, in the history of this Nation and our checks and balances and the separation of the different branches of government, it just doesn't hold up. And, thus, I know it's frustrating for the chairman to have me say, well, that's a——
    Mr. LANTOS. A little frustration won't hurt him, Madam Attorney General.
    Ms. RENO. Well, I don't know. Let him speak for himself. But where the oversight function can come in, as indicated, is as the investigation proceeds, when matters can be discussed. And one of the points of the independent counsel statute is that it provides, it gives me an opportunity to provide, in an appropriate forum, with approval of the court, a notification as to why I took action. And then I can make a statement to this committee, and I have made it on occasion to other committees, that we are going to continue this investigation and that I'm going to be the one ultimately responsible for it.
    So I'm not ducking anything. I'm not trying to protect anybody. I'm trying to do the job of conducting an investigation in the right way, recognizing that along the way I not only have to pursue the objects of the investigation, but I have got to constantly review it to determine whether the Independent Counsel Act has been triggered and whether—and if so, I intend to trigger it.
 Page 84       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. LANTOS. Madam Attorney General, it's obvious to all of us that the strategy on the other side is to drive a wedge between Director Freeh and yourself. Mr. Burton started out this hearing by making the startling and historically totally inaccurate statement that it's a unique situation that the Attorney General and the FBI Director are in disagreement on an issue.
    My reading of American history is diametrically opposed to that, because in almost every recent instance an Attorney General and an FBI Director differed, and differed publicly, and differed for protracted periods of time. Perhaps the best known case is the confrontation between the late Robert Kennedy and J. Edgar Hoover, but there are countless such instances.
    On the scale of the historic relationship between Attorneys General and FBI Directors, how would you rate your relationship with Director Freeh?
    Ms. RENO. I haven't compared it to others, but I think it's an excellent working relationship, because I have a public servant of the highest honor, who has a great variety of experiences in the criminal justice and the judicial system, who is not afraid to tell me what he thinks.
    And he knows that I value his opinion. He knows that I'm not always going to agree with him. But we have a relationship where we can pick up the phone, talk back and forth, walk across the street, talk it out, work it out, and we find ourselves in agreement much of the time. But if we were in agreement all the time, I'd get suspicious.
    Mr. LANTOS. The question was repeatedly asked of you by Mr. Burton whether Director Freeh's recommendation was constitutional or not. I didn't quite understand that question, because his recommendation to you is not a constitutional issue. He expressed his views to you, as other officials in the Department did, and you made the final determination, taking into account all of the input.
 Page 85       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Was there any discussion with all of your associates, including Mr. Freeh, which questioned your sole authority to make the final judgment concerning the invocation of the independent counsel statute?
    Ms. RENO. Again, if I were to get into the discussions and what was discussed——
    Mr. LANTOS. I'm not asking for details.
    Ms. RENO. But the decision is mine and mine alone. I'm the one responsible for it.
    Mr. LANTOS. I want to talk for a minute about the length of these independent counsel investigations and their cost. Former Republican Senator Warren Rudman said, and I think I quote him accurately, that these independent counsels are kings in a country that doesn't like kings. They have no limits: no time limits, no budgetary limits.
    We have independent counsels that go on for 4, 5, 6 years, spending tens of millions of dollars. What is your general judgment about the way this law is now written?
    Ms. RENO. What I have said from the beginning is that I don't comment on independent counsels' activities because I want to do everything I can to ensure their independence.
    With respect to the overall policy——
    Mr. LANTOS. Yes.
    Ms. RENO [continuing]. I have said that it is better that I finish my job and see how it has operated, the independent counsel statute has been implemented, in the investigations that are ongoing, and then make a judgment. Because if I were to make judgments with respect to the independent counsel statute now and said it should be changed in certain ways, that might deflect from what I am trying to do, which is to use the statute as it is drafted and use it the right way.
 Page 86       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I have made one comment that goes to the general issue, because it was raised, and that is the budgeting issue. I do think that everybody in Government should have a budget and be accountable for it. And I would have—as I recollect, and we can confirm it for you—written to Senator Hatch in these last several years suggesting that there might be some revision of the budget policy so you can hold each person who is spending the money accountable.
    Mr. LANTOS. One of the key issues in this entire investigation has been our judgment that Mr. Burton and his colleagues attempted to portray violations of the letter or the spirit of campaign finance laws as if they had been all one-sided, mistakes committed purely by the Democratic side.
    In 1995, the Republican House-Senate dinner invitation put a very clear price tag on Federal property: $15,000 contributors were invited to a breakfast hosted by then Senator Bob Dole in the Senate Caucus Room; $45,000 contributors were invited to a luncheon hosted by Speaker Gingrich in the Great Hall of the Library of Congress.
    Were you asked by Mr. Burton or any other colleague on the other side to have an independent counsel appointed to investigate these facts?
    Ms. RENO. I think it is important—the only time I have ever heard Mr. Burton say anything like—about independent counsel in that context was what he said at the outset. But I think it is important that I not comment for the very reasons that I have discussed previously on how matters should be handled or on what we are doing, because part of it is necessary to protect people who may be the subject of the investigation as well.
    And it is important that it be done in a professional, orderly, confidential way to ensure the efficacy of the investigation, to provide for an appropriate decorum with respect to people or witnesses or other people that might be inappropriately implicated in the investigation, though it's done the right way, and to make sure that people can speak their mind.
 Page 87       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. LANTOS. Madam Attorney General, I will not ask you to comment on my next observation, but I think it is important to make it, because it is important to underscore that this pretended horror on the other side that calls were made from the White House is unprecedented in American history. I would like the record to show that President Reagan made fund-raising calls from both the White House and from Camp David. These calls included a direct solicitation of Richard DeVoss, president of Amway, asking him to raise $3,350,000. No one is calling for an independent counsel to investigate this.
    But I think it's important to realize, as we clearly do on this side of the aisle, that what is called for is a fundamental review of campaign finance laws so that the American people again will be able to have confidence in the way their Government officials function in this arena.
    Madam Attorney General, I did not think that my respect for you could increase during the course of this hearing, because it was such a high level, but the dignified, and candid, and straightforward and professional answers you gave to Mr. Burton have served to increase my respect and admiration for you as a person and for the work you are doing.
    And I want to yield 5 minutes now to my colleague, Mr. Kanjorski.
    Mr. KANJORSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Lantos.
    Madam Attorney General, when you make this process and this decision as to what your final determination will be on the selection of an independent counsel or not, is this done with your advisers around the table, or is this done on a request on your part that this material be provided in a memorandum form?
    Ms. RENO. It's done in both ways.
    Mr. KANJORSKI. In regard to the——
    Ms. RENO. Oftentimes I don't make the decision around the table. I leave the table, think about it, take my walks, figure it out, come back, read something, go back and say I need to talk to some more people, get more issues clarified in the law. It is an evolving process.
 Page 88       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. KANJORSKI. The advisors that you have, how many of them would you say give you a written memorandum as opposed to oral advice?
    Ms. RENO. There are significant numbers of written memorandums prepared. It varies, again, from case to case and how straightforward it is.
    Mr. KANJORSKI. I find it highly unusual that in the tobacco industry that the relationship between tobacco and the cause of cancer was contained in memorandums in legal files of some of the outstanding law firms of this country for more than 30 years.
    In the asbestos industry, legal files contained memorandums and studies of scientists within those industries that indicated there were adverse health reactions and relationships to the cause of cancer and asbestos that were contained in those files for more than 50 years.
    And unusually, in this instance, a written memorandum provided for you in an advisory manner by the chief investigator of the United States appears to have been partially or totally disclosed outside of the confidentiality of that relationship.
    Is that a reasonable conclusion, that it has been disclosed outside? I have read reports in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal that indicate portions of this memorandum were read in their totality to members of the press. Is that right?
    Ms. RENO. I don't know, sir, but I think, clearly, there has been some discussion of it. And what that goes to are leaks.
    I think it is so important that Government be as open as possible. As I indicated earlier, one of the ways that I was responsive to the people that I served in Dade County was that I wrote closeout memorandums that were summaries, that didn't contain information that related to other investigations and that I could be held responsible. And I think I should be held responsible at the conclusion of my efforts and be as open as I possibly can. So I'm not trying to avoid that.
 Page 89       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. KANJORSKI. I'm limited in time, and I want to direct particularly to this leak. Do you consider this a leak?
    Ms. RENO. I, frankly, have not had a chance to think about just what it is because I have been concentrating first on making the appropriate decision and second preparing for the chairman.
    Mr. KANJORSKI. How many people prepared written memorandums for your consideration in regard to the decision?
    Ms. RENO. I have not counted the number.
    Mr. KANJORSKI. Do you have a rough guesstimation?
    Ms. RENO. There are at least six.
    Mr. KANJORSKI. Were they all in your possession or in a very confidential group in the Department of Justice, or were they scattered and copyrighted and sent out in free distribution to the Department? Were there a limited number of people that would have had access to this material?
    Ms. RENO. Because I consulted with a large number of people, both senior staff, long-time career people, a large number of people had access to these memorandums.
    Mr. KANJORSKI. To these memorandums. To your knowledge, has the FBI or the Director of the FBI ordered an investigation as to how this memorandum was leaked to the press?
    Ms. RENO. Well, again, we don't know that it leaked. Its existence certainly became evident.
    Mr. KANJORSKI. It is the only one I have read about. You said many memorandum were prepared, and I saw no other referred to, Madam Attorney General.
    Ms. RENO. Well——
 Page 90       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. KANJORSKI. There is a saying in this town, and we all recognize that this is a political town, and regardless of your decision in this case, unless you were satisfactory in making the decision to appoint an independent counsel you know you would have been here today. And that would be perfectly acceptable. It would be a political act on the part of the majority, and we would expect that. And this is a political witch-hunt.
    But the fact that there is this difference between the Attorney General of the United States and the Director of the FBI, where confidential discussion and information apparently leaked to the press, that disturbs me a great deal. Because just recently Senator Hatch thinks that the FBI should make a private investigation of this entire matter, and I am very disturbed as to this investigating agency's ability to hold confidentiality.
    I think that is the most important thing we are going to discuss here today. How did this all happen? And when it did happen, should we take some action now? I don't know what is in that memorandum. Quite frankly, since a good number of the press know and, obviously, a lot of people in the Department of Justice know, maybe the American people ought to know. I am not sure I am opposed to giving carte blanche approval on my part to release that document. But it does substantially annoy me that that type of a legal confidentiality between the chief investigative agency of the United States and the chief law enforcement officer of the Attorney General of the United States cannot remain confidential; that in a matter of hours—I know we have an old saying in this town that it is cover your own something, and I hope that we are going to have some investigation into the determination of how that happened, to determine whether or not we have a subset of political activities ongoing in this city as a result of this investigation.
    I see my time has expired. Mr. Lantos may have an additional question.
    Mr. LANTOS. I would like to yield to Mr. Sanders for whatever time we have left, and then we will give you the balance of the time the next round.
 Page 91       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SANDERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Lantos, and I would like to welcome the Attorney General. I would like to make a brief statement and then ask the Attorney General several questions.
    Mr. Chairman, this committee has had an enormous opportunity to seriously address one of the major crises facing this country, and that is that we are living under an absurd campaign finance system which allows the wealthiest people in this country to use their financial resources to exert enormous influence over the economic and political policies of our government.
    Tragically, the United States of America today has, by far, the lowest voter turnout of any industrialized nation on earth. All over America working people and middle-class people are giving up on the political system because they say, well, I have one vote, but how does that one vote compare to the millionaire or the billionaire who can contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to the political party of their choice, whether it is the Republican party, the Democratic party, or the candidate of their choice.
    Ordinary people, as Mr. Lantos indicated a moment ago, do not go to fund-raising dinners at $45,000 a plate. Ordinary people do not contribute huge sums of money to the political party of their choice.
    It seems to me that what this committee should be doing, if it were serious, and if it were serious about campaign finance reform, which admittedly you are not serious about, what we should be doing is trying to understand why people contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars, what they get in return, and how this has created a situation in this country so that tens of millions of people no longer even participate in the political process because they are so disgusted with it.
    The fact is that one-quarter of 1 percent of the people contribute over 80 percent of all political contributions, and that is absurd. It has got to change. And we should point out at the end of all these hearings you don't believe in campaign finance reform. Your colleagues don't believe we should limit the amount of money that the wealthy and the powerful pay. And I think that is at the root of the problem of all of these hearings.
 Page 92       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    But let me ask our distinguished Attorney General a question, if I might.
    Mr. BURTON. Well, the gentleman's time has expired. I will allow one question because I took a little extra time.
    Mr. SANDERS. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
    And let me ask the Attorney General, do you believe, having looked at this situation so carefully, that the current campaign finance laws adequately protect the political process from undo influence from wealthy special interests?
    Ms. RENO. Sir, from my experience, they need to be reformed, and I think it is important that everyone work together to seek a reform.
    Mr. SANDERS. Thank you.
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Cox of California is recognized for 10 minutes.
    Mr. COX. I thank the chairman. Madam Attorney General, I would like to read to you from yesterday's——
    Mr. LANTOS. Excuse me. If I may raise a point of order. I apologize to my good friend of California.
    Mr. BURTON. Suspend the time for a moment. The gentleman will state his point of order.
    Mr. LANTOS. On this side, Mr. Chairman, we are very anxious to have every colleague have an opportunity to question our distinguished Attorney General. She has an obligation. Might it be possible to have the rounds restricted to 5 minutes on both sides so even the more junior Members have a chance to ask questions?
    Mr. BURTON. The Attorney General has indicated that she could be with us, I think, until around 2 o'clock; is that correct?
    Ms. RENO. [Nodding in the affirmative.]
 Page 93       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BURTON. And we already have passed on the procedure that we are going to follow today. We are only talking about 15 minutes additional on each side. So we have 10 minutes, 10 minutes, 10 minutes, three times, and then we will go to the 5-minute rule for the rest of the Members.
    Mr. Cox.
    Mr. COX. I thank the chairman.
    Again, welcome, Madam Attorney General. I would like to read to you from page 1 of yesterday's Los Angeles Times:

    Carrying envelopes stuffed with bundles of $50 and $100 bills, a slightly built man with a stringy mustache left his hotel room in Monterey Park, California, on an unusual quest: He was looking for volunteers to accept $10,000 in cash. . . . In exchange, he allegedly collected a small packet of personal checks made out to the ''DNC,'' the Democratic National Committee, an entity that some of the check writers had never heard of.

    Hundreds of thousands of dollars may have flowed to the Democratic party coffers through these methods.
    And, again, I am reading from a page 1 story in the Los Angeles Times. To continue:

    Records show the $80,000 originated in the Bank of China in the account of a Macao-based businessman,

Ng Lap Seng.

 Page 94       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    On August 7, 1996, the money was wired to an account at the Riggs National Bank, in Washington, D.C., held by Yah Lin ''Charlie'' Trie, a controversial Democratic fund-raiser and longtime friend of President Clinton's.
    Antonio Pan and Trie are among a handful of figures in the fund-raising controversy who are believed to be overseas.

    Pan is no stranger to the White House.

    Records show he visited the executive mansion at least eight times between August 1995 and October 1996. Pan was an associate of both Trie and another controversial Democratic fund-raiser, John Huang. Both Pan and Huang were former executives of the Indonesia-based Lippo Group, whose owners, the Riady family, were longtime supporters of Clinton.

    James Riady, we have learned in our hearings, is so close to President Clinton that he is in possession of a unique zip code that permits him to send his mail directly to the President without even the President's staff reading it. In 1 week, in June 1994, as the chairman stated earlier, James Riady was admitted to the White House four times, each time accompanied by John Huang. They met with President Clinton, and days later $100,000 went from the Lippo Group to Webster Hubbell. At that time, Webster Hubbell was under investigation by an independent counsel.
    Now, you had said at the time that Webster Hubbell resigned from the Department of Justice, ''I don't believe he did a thing wrong.'' And that is perhaps understandable because you worked with him and you were close to him. He was in your department. But of course he was prosecuted and he did go to jail.
    Our question is not whether there should be an investigation. There ought to be one. The question is not whether it ought to be conducted in accordance with Justice Department policies. Of course, it must. And the independent counsel statute provides that it must. But the question is whether there is any appearance of a conflict of interest with the administration investigating itself.
 Page 95       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And with all respect to my colleague from California, who earlier asked you whether your relationship with President Clinton antedates your nomination and confirmation as Attorney General, I think it is quite clear that you are a member of the President's cabinet.
    So I would like to ask you about the law, because the law gives you discretion, and we are here because of what you had to say; that this is your call. The law makes it a matter of your discretion. Of course, you are following the law whichever way you go. It is a matter of your discretion and we are here to ask you about your discretion.
    Specifically, in the exercise of your discretion, have you begun a preliminary investigation under the independent counsel statute of John Huang?
    Ms. RENO. No, we have not.
    Mr. COX. Have you, in your discretion, begun a preliminary investigation into Charlie Trie?
    Ms. RENO. By preliminary investigation, do you mean the preliminary investigation, on both these questions, that is referred to——
    Mr. COX. The independent counsel investigation.
    Ms. RENO. With respect to what is described as a preliminary investigation under the Independent Counsel Act, we have not commenced a preliminary investigation under the act.
    Mr. COX. Have you commenced an independent counsel preliminary investigation, preliminary investigation with respect to Antonio Pan?
    Ms. RENO. No, we have not.
    Mr. COX. Have you commenced a preliminary investigation with respect to Webster Hubbell?
    Ms. RENO. The—I'm not sure what I can tell you, but——
 Page 96       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. COX. You can tell me that under the statute. You can tell me that, and you have already——
    Ms. RENO. I have seen press reports that an independent counsel is pursuing this matter. I cannot, I don't think, without further commenting and affecting his independence, I don't think I can comment further.
    Mr. COX. Well, I am asking you a different question: whether or not you have commenced a preliminary investigation. I don't want to ask you about what anybody else is doing. Have you commenced a preliminary investigation of Webster Hubbell?
    Ms. RENO. I don't think that I can comment with respect to whatever action has been taken under the independent counsel statute and the need for confidentiality.
    Mr. COX. And is that a claim of privilege on your part?
    Ms. RENO. It's not a claim of privilege, it is a claim that it's confidential.
    Mr. COX. It is not a claim of privilege and, therefore, it is simply your preference not to answer this committee. If you do not have a claim of privilege, I think you are required to answer the question.
    Ms. RENO. What I have tried to do is to make sure that I do not comment in any way that would affect what an independent counsel is doing. I will be happy to talk with the independent counsel and see what I might be able to comment on and what I can't, but I do not think you want me to do anything that might imperil an independent counsel's investigation.
    Mr. COX. Indeed, my concern is that you are not even commencing these investigations.
    Have you commenced under the independent counsel statute a preliminary investigation of Mark Middleton?
 Page 97       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. No, I have not.
    Mr. COX. Earlier in your testimony today you stated that it is your interpretation of the law that a political conflict of interest or any conflict of interest in order to permit you to proceed under the independent counsel statute must be actual rather than potential. Is that an accurate statement of your testimony?
    Ms. RENO. That's correct.
    Mr. COX. Now, I would like to read to you the statute: ''When the Attorney General determines that an investigation or prosecution of a person by the Department of Justice may''—may—''result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest, the Attorney General may conduct a preliminary investigation.''
    Now, is it still your view, having been refreshed with the language of the statute, that you must have an actual conflict of interest?
    Ms. RENO. Yes, we will be happy to provide you with the letter in which we outlined our position to Senator Hatch.
    Mr. COX. Can you explain to me why section 591(c) does not mean what it says?
    Ms. RENO. I will be happy to provide the——
    Mr. COX. Right now. Can you tell me now?
    Ms. RENO. I do not have the memorandum with me.
    Mr. COX. If somebody could supply you with a copy of the statute, it would be greatly helpful to me.
    Ms. RENO. Here is what the statute says. It says, when the Attorney General determines an investigation or prosecution of a person by the Department of Justice may result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest, the Attorney General may conduct a preliminary investigation of such person in accordance with section 592, et cetera.
 Page 98       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [The information referred to follows:]
    INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 306 HERE
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]

    Mr. COX. Precisely. That is just what I read to you. So you and I are reading off the same page, and I believe there can be no cavil about what that sentence says. If a person being investigated by the Department of Justice may result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest, then you can go and appoint an independent counsel following a preliminary investigation by the Department of Justice.
    I am just asking whether you have started, even commenced, begun, preliminary investigations with respect to any of these people covered in yesterday's Los Angeles Times article, and your answer is no. I am trying to understand your interpretation of the law.
    Ms. RENO. At any moment I will see if I have the copy of the letter here.
    Mr. COX. Madam Attorney General, because my time is limited, I think if you could get back to us in writing, I would greatly appreciate it.
    Ms. RENO. I will be happy to send you a copy of the letter we sent to Senator Hatch.
    [The information referred to follows:]
    INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 307 TO 315 HERE
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]

    Mr. COX. I think you understand my puzzlement, because this is really about your discretion. I think you are quite right to say the buck stops here, it stops with me, but one of the reasons we are going to talk to the head of the FBI after we are finished with you is that——
 Page 99       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. Don't say it like you're finished with me. It sounds like you're giving me a hard time. I think you're—I appreciate the chairman's thoughtfulness in terms of just pursuing it. But I hope you're not finished with me, because I hope that you will continue your oversight function.
    Mr. COX. I mean to do so.
    You told the chairman that you discussed your decision not to go forward with an independent counsel with political as well as career people at the Department of Justice but you declined to answer his question when he asked you specifically whether you discussed this matter with Eric Holder or Mr. Hogan, your chief of staff. And I would like to ask you those questions once again.
    I don't want to ask you what you discussed with them, and I think I can understand the basis of your——
    Ms. RENO. I discussed my decision with senior staff at the Department of Justice. I discussed it with Director Freeh. I discussed it with lawyers in the Department. I have——
    Mr. COX. Does that include Eric Holder and Mr. Hogan?
    Ms. RENO. Again, I don't think that I should talk about what people advised me when it is my decision.
    Mr. COX. We may have a disagreement about whether you have to answer this question. Is it your view you do not have to answer this question?
    Ms. RENO. My hope is that this committee would understand how important it is to have full and frank discussion and that they would honor that.
    Mr. COX. For that reason, I do not wish to ask you anything about the content of your conversation with these people, but I do wish to know whether or not you discussed this question with them. Those two people, either one of them, did you discuss——
 Page 100       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. Discuss what question with them?
    Mr. COX. Your decision whether to proceed with an independent counsel in this matter.
    Ms. RENO. I think if I tell you who I discussed it with, then your next question is going to be what did you discuss, and I am trying my level best to answer the question——
    Mr. COX. What is your basis for declining to answer the question, I mean apart from discretion? Do you believe that we cannot properly, as Members of Congress, know the answer to this question?
    Ms. RENO. I just would hope that you'd realize that you made me responsible and that you'd ask me the questions about why I did something or why I didn't.
    Mr. COX. Well, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that absent a claim of executive privilege, it is perfectly within the province of this committee to know the answer to the question that you earlier put and the question I just put again.
    Since the witness is obviously uninterested in answering the question that we have fairly put to her, I would request of the Attorney General, and ask the chairman to make the same request, that we get a valid claim of privilege in writing from the Department of Justice following the hearing.
    Ms. RENO. Here is the answer. This is in my letter to Senator Hatch of April 14, 1997. Fourth, even this discretionary provision is not available unless I find a conflict of interest of the sort contemplated by the act. The Congress has made it very clear that this provision should be invoked only in certain narrow circumstances. Under the act, I must conclude that there is a potential for an actual conflict of interest rather than merely an appearance of a conflict of interest. The Congress expressly adopted this higher standard to ensure that the provision would not be invoked unnecessarily. See 128, Congressional Record, H9507, daily edition, December 13, 1982, statement of Representative Hall.
 Page 101       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Moreover, I must find that there is the potential for such an actual conflict with respect to the investigation of a particular person, not with respect to the overall matter. Indeed, when the act was reauthorized in 1994, Congress considered the proposal for a more flexible standard for invoking the discretionary clause which would have permitted it to use its use to refer any matter to an independent counsel when the purposes of the act would be served. Congress rejected this suggestion, explaining that such a standard would substantially lower the threshold for use of the general discretionary provision. H.R. Conference Report No. 511, 103d Congress, second session, 9/19/94.
    Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired. With all respect to the Attorney General, I am a lawyer, the statute trumps your memo, and the statute says ''may.'' It is clearly potential.
    Ms. RENO. Be happy to get any memorandum you have and consider it.
    Mr. COX. With respect to the questions that are still pending that the Attorney General has refused to answer, I would reiterate my request of the Attorney General that she provide us with a written statement of her claim of privilege and her refusal to answer those questions.
    Mr. BURTON. We will make that request and will pursue this further.
    [The information referred to follows:]
    INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 316 TO 320 HERE
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]

    Mr. BURTON. Mr. Lantos.
    Mr. LANTOS. Before yielding to my friend from Vermont, I want the record to show that the Attorney General has been fully forthcoming in answering all appropriate questions. Questions directed to the Attorney General that interfere with her official responsibilities as Attorney General are inappropriate questions, should not be asked, and she is perfectly proper in not responding to them.
 Page 102       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I now would like to yield to my good friend from Vermont for the balance of his questioning time.
    Mr. SANDERS. Madam Attorney General, let me open a discussion on an area that, to the best of my knowledge, we really have not talked about this morning yet.
    It is my understanding that the decision you made with regard to the phone calls made by the President and Vice President related to whether they were in violation of the Pendleton Act. Can you tell us what the purpose of the Pendleton Act is, and what were your findings regarding the President and Vice President's calls in relation to the Pendleton Act?
    Ms. RENO. The Pendleton Act was adopted in the 1800's and in the 1880's. My understanding from my reading of the legislative history is that people would come to Federal offices and say, look, this is how you got your job, better contribute. And just the fact of solicitation within Federal offices created a chilling effect.
    Obviously, as technology has changed, those issues have changed.
    One of our findings is, let me—a significant open legal issue under section 607 is whether a telephone call solicitation from Federal work space to a private location is a solicitation in the Federal workplace. This is a difficult issue made more complicated by the legislative history of 607 and by the only Supreme Court decision discussing the statute.
    However, I have concluded, based on the clear facts developed in the course of this preliminary investigation, that I need not finally resolve this legal issue; and I do not finally resolve the legal issue. But I therefore assume for purposes of this investigation, that under section 607 a solicitation over the telephone could be deemed to have occurred in both the location from which the call was placed and the location where the call was received. And so I do not reach the issue of whether 607 would cover this. I assume it for the purposes of discussion.
    Mr. SANDERS. The chairman and others have expressed great shock that the head of the FBI and you are in disagreement. I don't know about the chairman, but in my staff and the world that I work in, there is usually a lot of disagreement among serious people.
 Page 103       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    My understanding is that you are the No. 1 law enforcement person in this country; is that correct?
    Ms. RENO. The chairman said that Director Freeh was the No. 1 law enforcement person. I have never quibbled about that. I have got my responsibilities and I am going to do them.
    Mr. SANDERS. You are the Attorney General of the United States of America. How many attorneys do you have working under you?
    Ms. RENO. The last I counted there were about 6,000 in U.S. Attorney offices and in main Justice and other offices across the country.
    Mr. SANDERS. In your effort to do the best job that you can, is it uncommon that people who work with you or under you occasionally express disagreement with you?
    Ms. RENO. Occasionally express disagreement? What—the reason I feel so strongly about this is I think they have learned that they can speak openly and fairly; and we have such good discussions, and they so inform the issue.
    Mr. SANDERS. My time is up. Thank you very much.
    Mr. LANTOS. I want to yield to my good friend and distinguished colleague from New York, Mrs. Maloney.
    Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Attorney General Reno, am I correct that you have been the Attorney General of the United States for almost 5 years?
    Ms. RENO. That's right.
    Mrs. MALONEY. I am also correct that you are familiar with the responsibilities under the Independent Counsel Act?
    Ms. RENO. I have learned an awful lot about it in the last 4 1/2 years.
    Mrs. MALONEY. Among those responsibilities is the determination of whether to apply for the appointment of an independent counsel, correct?
 Page 104       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. That's correct.
    Mrs. MALONEY. And are there certain statutory standards for making that determination?
    Ms. RENO. Yes, there are.
    Mrs. MALONEY. In fact, during your tenure as Attorney General, you have made determinations to apply for the appointment of an independent counsel on a number of occasions and haven't you done so on at least four occasions?
    Ms. RENO. That's correct.
    Mrs. MALONEY. And at least one of those occasions involved President Clinton?
    Ms. RENO. That's correct.
    Mrs. MALONEY. With respect to your current decision, isn't it true that you reviewed all information reasonably available to you?
    Ms. RENO. That's right.
    Mrs. MALONEY. Did you include all information provided to you by the FBI?
    Ms. RENO. That's correct.
    Mrs. MALONEY. Did you thoroughly review all information provided to you prior to making your decision?
    Ms. RENO. I went over it very carefully.
    Mrs. MALONEY. Did you have any discussions or communications with President Clinton or White House personnel prior to making your decision?
    Mrs. MALONEY. The only communication I had was with Chuck Ruff, the White House Counsel, when I called him to find out why we had not been notified prior to the hearing, and prior to responding to Chairmen Hyde and Hatch, why we had not been notified when Congress had been notified before us and we had responded to a 30-day letter. I wanted to know why that had happened. That is the only conversation that I have had.
 Page 105       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mrs. MALONEY. Did President Clinton or any White House personnel participate in any way in your decision?
    Ms. RENO. No.
    Mrs. MALONEY. Did you have any discussions with President Clinton or any White House personnel regarding what your decision would be?
    Ms. RENO. No.
    Mrs. MALONEY. Isn't it true that you were not President Clinton's first choice for Attorney General?
    Ms. RENO. That's right.
    Mrs. MALONEY. Isn't it true that prior to your appointment as Attorney General, you had no political or personal connection with President Clinton?
    Ms. RENO. The only personal connection I had was that I had helped start a drug court in Dade County that has proven very successful, and the Public Defender in that drug court was Mrs. Clinton's brother.
    Mrs. MALONEY. Isn't it true that you made your decision independently after you reviewed carefully all the evidence?
    Ms. RENO. I think I described to the chairman my process, which was—I mean, it is review all the evidence, go back and talk to people, hear people out, see what evolves, think about it, get memorandums early enough so that you can really go through it in detail.
    I would come back with a list of things and call people in and say, what about this, what about that, what can we do here. And it has been a very detailed process because I wanted to make sure that I did what I thought was right.
    Mrs. MALONEY. Was your decision in any way influenced by the White House or political concerns?
 Page 106       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. No.
    Mrs. MALONEY. Do you have any doubt that you have fulfilled your statutory obligations fairly, fully and without bias?
    Ms. RENO. Absolutely. As I mentioned to the chairman at some point, he and I may disagree and I may have done the wrong thing, but I know I have tried to do what was right to the best of my ability.
    Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Attorney General, we have heard many allegations today that the scope of your investigation was too narrow. I might suggest that the scope of your investigation include issue advertising. Issue advertising is securing large amounts of soft money in our campaign system and the Triad Management Services, this particular group allegedly funneled millions of dollars into issue ads, into two nonprofit organizations, Citizens for Reform and Citizens for the Republican Education Fund. These practices allowed wealthy donors to pour unregulated sums of money, large sums of money into congressional races without even minimal disclosure requirements.
    It has been reported in numerous newspapers. In one ad financed by Triad a candidate from Montana was accused of beating his wife. The paper has alleged that the ad was produced in coordination with the candidate's opponents. My question is, is coordination between a campaign and an outside group legal?
    Ms. RENO. With respect to all of these issues, I think that I should not, again, comment on this, on what is legal and what is not legal while the matter is pending. As I said in April, coordination between Presidential candidates and their national party committees on the national party spending for political advertisements does not appear to be forbidden either by the act or the public financing laws. But I think it is important that the FEC continue to look at that, as I understand they are, and that, as we develop any evidence that indicates that we should take action, we would do so. And otherwise, I do not think I should comment.
 Page 107       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mrs. MALONEY. You mentioned earlier that you believed that we should, as a Congress, move forward with campaign finance reform. We have had numerous oversight hearings, many of which you have participated in. Yet there have been very few hearings and very little serious discussion on how to reform the campaign finance system.
    Would you agree that if we were to limit the amount of soft money that could be contributed, many of the abuses you have investigated could not have taken place?
    Ms. RENO. Again, I think——
    Mrs. MALONEY. Many that have been mentioned in the press could not have taken place.
    Ms. RENO. I think it is very important that we work together to achieve reform. I do not think that I should talk about the specifics of it while my major responsibility is the conduct of this investigation.
    Mrs. MALONEY. Earlier you talked about the Pendleton Act. Do you think that the Pendleton Act should be amended to provide greater clarity about what actions constitute a violation of that law?
    Ms. RENO. Yes, ma'am.
    Mrs. MALONEY. You do. And you did mention earlier that you thought that we should limit the amount of money for independent prosecutors. Do you think we should also limit the amount of time?
    Ms. RENO. I did not suggest limiting money for independent prosecutors. What I talked about was the budget process whereby they have a budget that they spend and that they are responsible for, rather than just having access without limitation. I do not think it would limit their independence, and I think it would be a sounder process.
    Mrs. MALONEY. My time is up, but just in closing, it has been pointed out repeatedly that you alone have the statutory responsibility, the legal responsibility to make a determination for an independent counsel. I just want to note that I am sure that you have dealt with this matter in a fair and unbiased manner.
 Page 108       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Thank you for your testimony today.
    Mr. BURTON. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Mr. Barr.
    Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Turning your attention, Ms. Reno, to Mrs. O'Leary. In your opinion, your notification with regard to Mrs. O'Leary, at page 2, you make the statement that if Mrs. O'Leary was involved in the solicitation of the donation and the donation was an expressed quid pro quo in exchange for the meeting, as Mr. Chung's allegations suggest, these facts could constitute a potential violation of Federal criminal law.
    Which particular Federal criminal laws would you have in mind, or could that possibly apply to only 201, or might there be others, such as 18 U.S.C. 600, 641?
    Ms. RENO. Let me do this, Congressman. What I have tried to do is provide for the notification to the court that I want to make sure I do not in any way interfere with, as we reflect here.
    Therefore, based on the results, we have tried to make clear that we are continuing this investigation, that we do not have evidence sufficient with respect to Mrs. O'Leary to proceed. But what I would like to do is to make sure that I do not in any way interfere with the ongoing investigation, and I will provide you that answer if I can.
    [The information referred to follows:]
    INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 321 TO 322 HERE
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]

    Mr. BARR. Well, let me maybe approach it in a different way. Could an expressed quid pro quo between a solicitation and a meeting be a violation of provisions of the U.S. criminal code in addition to section 201, possibly section 600, possibly section 641, not with regard to the facts of this case in particular, but as a general matter?
 Page 109       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    My understanding is that you did those statutes.
    Ms. RENO. Again, this has been addressed specifically with respect to section 201.
    Mr. BARR. I understand.
    Ms. RENO. And I do not—I just would like to make sure that we do not do anything that would affect an ongoing investigation if I comment further. And at the conclusion, when I get back to the Department, I will clarify it and let you know what I can say and can't say without interfering with the ongoing investigation.
    Mr. BARR. That would be the ongoing investigation of Mrs. O'Leary?
    Ms. RENO. There is not an ongoing investigation of Mrs. O'Leary.
    Mr. BARR. Which one might you be referring to?
    Ms. RENO. At page 5 of the notification, it says, the circumstances surrounding the solicitation and payment of the donation and whether it was linked in any way possible to a possible meeting with Secretary O'Leary and the SINOPAC delegation are disputed and subject to differing interpretation by the participants. These circumstances and whether there may have been some unlawful contact by some participants warrant further investigation by the Department of Justice. As a result, we are limited in how much we can reveal about the details of our preliminary investigation.
    However, there is no evidence whatsoever that suggests that Mrs. O'Leary had any involvement in or knowledge about the alleged solicitation of the Africare donation or any possible connection that anyone was drawing between the meeting and the donation. So that is what I wanted to check, to make sure that I don't say anything that would interfere with the subsequent followup on that matter.
 Page 110       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BARR. You are talking about the O'Leary matter and the Department of Energy?
    Ms. RENO. That's correct.
    Mr. BARR. You are not talking about other investigations that might involve other parties and possible violations of 18 U.S.C. 201, 600 or 641?
    Ms. RENO. I would not comment.
    Mr. BARR. With regard to, in particular, the section that you just quoted from pages 5 and 6—and it is a common theme throughout the entire paper with regard to the evidence vis-a-vis Mrs. O'Leary—was Mr. Chung interviewed?
    Ms. RENO. Let me just check and see what I—my understanding is that it is in the notification. I can't—I was sure it was and that he was interviewed.
    Mr. BARR. He was interviewed?
    Ms. RENO. Uh-huh.
    Mr. BARR. Were his responses to questions, did it indicate, as reports have indicated generally, that the Secretary did thank him expressly for the $25,000 contribution?
    Ms. RENO. I don't know whether it is here, but I——
    Mr. BARR. It is not in the paper. My question, whether or not it is in the paper—I mean, were his responses——
    Ms. RENO. He has stated that his belief that Mrs. O'Leary knew about the solicitation was based solely on the Secretary's signature on the letter he received, confirming the meeting, which our investigation determined was an autopen signature, and one or two general thank-you statements she made during the meeting and when she stopped by his table at the Africare dinner. These facts are plainly insufficient to support a reasonable inference that Mrs. O'Leary was involved in the solicitation and amount to little more than speculation.
 Page 111       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BARR. Press reports state very clearly that Mr. Chung said that Energy Secretary O'Leary thanked him expressly for a $25,000 contribution. Were his answers to questioning by the Department consistent with those press reports?
    Ms. RENO. This notification reflects what the investigation revealed, and I do not—I think it outlines the press reports and I think it compares them.
    Mr. BARR. So the answer to the question is what?
    Ms. RENO. The press reports are not consistent with the notification.
    Mr. BARR. But are they consistent with his answers to questions during the interviews by the Department of Justice?
    Ms. RENO. His press reports are—he originally alleged that he was able to secure a meeting with Secretary O'Leary only after he had donated $25,000 to a charity she supports. He stated that his belief that Mrs. O'Leary knew about the solicitation was based solely on the Secretary's signature on the letter he received, confirming the meeting, which our investigation determined was an autopen signature; and that information jibes, if that is your question, with one or two general thank-you statements she made during the meeting and when she stopped by his table at the Africare dinner afterwards.
    Mr. BARR. So press reports that Chung said that Energy Secretary O'Leary expressly thanked him for the $25,000 contribution are inconsistent with his answers provided to the Department of Justice interviewers?
    Ms. RENO. I can check for you and see exactly, if this doesn't clarify it for you. Let me try to clarify it to the extent it would be appropriate in a followup for you.
    [NOTE.—The information referred to can be found on p. 629.]
 Page 112       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BARR. Well, the document from which you are reading is an accurate reflection of the Department's work. That would certainly be a correct statement, wouldn't it?
    Ms. RENO. That's correct. And what I will do is check and see what I can provide you in terms of what he said with respect to the thank-yous.
    Mr. BARR. If he had in fact stated that Mrs. O'Leary expressly thanked me for a $25,000 charitable contribution to Africare, would that change the Department's position?
    Ms. RENO. I think that is what he said originally, and I think with questions of the people who were there and the investigation that was done in this matter, this notification sets forth the Department's findings.
    Mr. BARR. With regard to Mr. Gore, are you familiar—I did not see reflected in your paper your notification on Mr. Gore—we have it, I think, as document 292—which is a memorandum to the Vice President, dated February 26, 1996, subject, DNC and Reelect Budgets. Are you familiar with that document?
    Ms. RENO. I don't know what document you are referring to without looking at it, sir.
    Mr. BARR. OK. If somebody could hand this to the Attorney General, please. It is on the screen. It is a document dated, as indicated, entitled, as I have indicated. And it goes on to state that the President and Vice President would actually be doing the calls, the calls reflecting the subject matter of the memorandum, DNC and Reelect Budgets. If, in fact, that was the basis for the calls that the Vice President made, about which there is little dispute, would not that clearly indicate that the Vice President knew that he was, in fact, making calls for reelect money, which is Federal money, which clearly would be covered by 18 U.S.C. 607?
 Page 113       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. I don't have a specific recollection of how this issue was addressed. I do not think it is addressed in the notification, and I will provide you that information if it is appropriate.
    Mr. BARR. Why wouldn't it be? Wouldn't this document be relevant?
    Ms. RENO. What I would like to do is check it out because it is not addressed in the notification, and I want to make sure since——
    Mr. BARR. Would it not——
    Mr. LANTOS. Regular order.
    Mr. BARR. Would it not, on the face of it, appear to be relevant?
    Mr. BURTON. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Lantos is recognized for 10 minutes, or someone on your side.
    Mr. LANTOS. I am delighted to yield to my good friend from Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett.
    Mr. BARRETT. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Reno you showed a lot of enthusiasm when my colleague Mrs. Maloney suggested or asked whether you thought the Pendleton Act should be updated. I just want to offer my assistance. I would be more than willing and, in fact, anxious to work with you in your office. I think that there is a number of Members on a bipartisan basis who would like to make sure that our laws are at least understandable. And clearly I think it is in everyone's best interests if we understand what the law is. So I just wanted to make that offer to you.
    With respect to the Pendleton Act, one of the criticisms that we have heard about your decision is that once you framed the issue, that it was basically a done deal that there would be no independent counsel. Could you help me understand how you went about framing the issue and why you framed it the way you did?
 Page 114       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. From the outset of the investigation, we have tried to consistently, regularly, constantly review the evidence that is developed in the ongoing investigation of campaign finance. We have tried to follow all the leads. But my message to everybody has been, if you have determined that the statute, the Independent Counsel Act, may be triggered, look at it carefully, consult with the lawyers in the Department who have had experience, both through Republican and Democratic administrations, in implementing and construing the act to make sure that if it is triggered, we respond immediately. And so as information is developed, we look at it, discuss it and see whether it has triggered the statute.
    In the specific instance of the President and the Vice President, 607 was the specific issue that was triggered. With respect to Mrs. O'Leary, it is a separate issue that, really, there is some common denominators to it, but we have tried to take every instance and pursue it. Some people say there is a larger theory, and we try to look at it to see what is the specific and credible information that indicates that there may have been a violation of Federal law. And we are constantly looking for that issue to see whether the statute would be triggered.
    Mr. BARRETT. So that when we hear comments from, particularly from the other side, but even from this side of the aisle, about an allegation that involves, for example, Chinese money, why did that not—why was that not a part of the consideration here?
    Ms. RENO. Again, I have to be careful in how I comment on it. But with respect—the statute has two parts, as Chairman Burton has described. One covers covered persons, and if I find specific and credible information concerning a covered person, then I have got to trigger the statute. I do not have specific and credible information that a covered person knowingly violated a law with respect to the issues that you discuss. I have got to have that information.
    With respect to other people who are not covered, I still have got—the threshold is to find that there is a conflict investigating a person for whom I have specific and credible information. And then I must look at the totality. What is the transaction, what is the relationship, how is a covered person impacted in it? There, each has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
 Page 115       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BARRETT. Much has been made and many comparisons have been made with the decision by President Reagan to appoint an independent counsel in Iran-Contra concerning that case. My recollection is that that ended in 1992, when President Bush ended that investigation and pardoned six people. Am I right? Is that the one where——
    Ms. RENO. I don't remember all the details. I don't remember how many people.
    Mr. BARRETT. Because so much has been made that that was such a great Profiles in Courage move, we never got the end of the book. I do not recall exactly. Maybe I am mistaken. I thought that that is how the Iran-Contra special counsel——
    Ms. RENO. I just tried to concentrate on what I have to deal with since March 12, 1993.
    Mr. BARRETT. Which brings me to my next question. Could you run through, please, for me the different cases where you have appointed an independent counsel?
    Ms. RENO. Again, I can tell you that I have sought the appointment of at least four.
    Mr. BARRETT. And those cases are?
    Ms. RENO. The first case was the case that the chairman alluded to which—in which I originally appointed a special counsel because the Independent Counsel Act was not then in effect. It had lapsed. I made a statement that when the Independent Counsel Act was passed, I would seek to use the processes of the act, and the court then appointed another independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, and you are generally familiar with the press accounts of Mr. Starr.
    I have referred related matters or agreed to Mr. Starr pursuing related matters with respect to that.
    Mr. BARRETT. So it is commonly known as the Whitewater.
 Page 116       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. LANTOS. I am sorry. My friend's time has expired. We have to move on to Congresswoman Norton.
    Mr. BARRETT. I understand. Thank you very much.
    Ms. NORTON. Welcome, Madam Attorney General. I just want to note for the record, since I sat in on the deposition that was taken this week of Ms. O'Leary, that not only was the submission to the court closing out that matter made with the most definitive language, but in a letter from the counsel of this committee, that matter has apparently been closed out as well. In that letter of December 8, counsel said that the reason for calling her was because there was no access to Justice Department sources as is, of course, appropriate and that, quote, ''the committee will not be calling Ms. O'Leary before a hearing next week.'' No other subpoena was issued to your client. It seems to me that all questioning on that matter is indeed moot.
    Madam Attorney General, I am sure there is confusion since people have seen tapes, and there is every indication that Democrats and Republicans alike were going around raising all kinds of money from anybody in sight. In your investigation of the President and the Vice President, was there any evidence of a request for a quid pro quo or any kind of quid pro quo such as a job or a contract or a promise of any sort?
    Ms. RENO. With respect to ongoing matters, if there was specific and credible information of the kind that you just talked about, it would trigger the statute. With respect to these specific calls covered in the notification, that is not—there has not been specific and credible information to that effect.
    Ms. NORTON. Is some information of any kind of quid pro quo required under the statute?
    Ms. RENO. With respect to the matter covered by this notification, section 607, it is simply a telephone call, as I have assumed here, though I have not decided, a telephone call to a non-Federal location soliciting money or receiving money would be covered. You do not need the quid pro quo.
 Page 117       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. NORTON. Well, apparently under Department policy there are, there is more than one gate through which an investigation must enter. The Department policy apparently also involves aggravating circumstances. Could you give me an example, that is to say that the statute is triggered not automatically, but if——
    Ms. RENO. If you had a situation where a person sent computer mailings to Federal offices soliciting money, and the Department of Justice said, look, it looks like it has been a mistake, please don't do it again, and it was done again and again in total disregard to the admonitions, that might be conceivably a basis for it. But it is very dangerous to do what ifs.
    Ms. NORTON. Yes, but clearly, you are implying that a single incident where you might not be able to show intent might not trigger the statute because the Department would look at its own policy to see if there were aggravating circumstances.
    Ms. RENO. We have tried not to address the issue of intent. We have tried to address the issue of exactly what was done and whether it was a violation of the law.
    Ms. NORTON. And there is departmental policy as well as the law to be considered?
    Ms. RENO. And the departmental policy specifically provided under the Independent Counsel Act, in determining under this chapter whether reasonable grounds exist to warrant further investigation, the Attorney General shall comply with the written or other established policies of the Department of Justice with respect to the conduct of criminal investigations.
    Ms. NORTON. And those would be policies that were in effect before you became Attorney General.
    Ms. RENO. That is correct.
 Page 118       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. NORTON. You have testified that you have appointed independent counsels, or your view that there should be an independent counsel has taken place on four occasions.
    Ms. RENO. At least four occasions.
    Ms. NORTON. Could any of those—could an independent counsel in any of those investigations conceivably reach a covered person in the normal course of an investigation, such as the President or the Vice President?
    Ms. RENO. Well, with respect to the first one, the President, Whitewater——
    Ms. NORTON. I am now speaking about an appointment that is investigating other than the President and the Vice President.
    Ms. RENO. It could conceivably, but it would depend on the circumstances.
    Ms. NORTON. But nothing would keep an independent counsel from going there if that is where the evidence led?
    Ms. RENO. If it was related, and there you get into the discussion of what is related to the independent counsel's jurisdiction. And if it were related, I would just let the independent counsel handle it as a related matter, or in other instances as I have done, I might refer it because it is connected.
    Mr. BURTON. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Mr. Shadegg.
    Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to begin my remarks with a few prefatory statements. First of all, I served in the Arizona attorney general's office for 8 years. During that time, we prosecuted many public officials. We prosecuted a member of the Governor's cabinet for a felony and convicted him, and we prosecuted the Governor himself for a felony, so I have been—I was at that time the third ranking lawyer in the office—where you are now, and I think I have some judgment to bring to that issue.
 Page 119       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I also believe, Madam Attorney General, that I can fundamentally disagree with what you did without being partisan or seeking partisan gain, and that one of the problems here is that you view your critics as totally partisan and trying to change your view and don't look at their criticism in a fair manner.
    Indeed I would argue, Madam Attorney General, that if you are correct that a technical violation of the law by the Vice President cannot be proven or the President could not be proven, the greatest disservice you have done to them is by not allowing the appointment of an independent counsel to make that point.
    I do believe, Madam Attorney General, that you believe you have done the right thing. I do believe that, in your words, you have made your decision based upon the law and the facts. I believe indeed that you have thoroughly focused on crossing the T's and dotting the I's. But regrettably, I think you have missed the larger picture. I think you have approached this as a line prosecutor and not in a fashion that you should as the sitting Attorney General.
    I do not think your job is to cross the T's and dot the I's. I think your job is to step back and look at the forest and look at the whole picture. I think it is your job to have a higher calling and to ensure that there is public confidence in the decisions you make and that no one will believe that the President or the Vice President is above the law or that they were cleared by someone who had a conflict of interest.
    And I would cite in support of that position your own testimony on May 14, 1993, to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in which you said, the credibility and public confidence engendered by the fact that an independent and impartial outsider has examined the evidence and concluded that prosecution is not warranted serves to clear a public official's name in a way that no Justice Department investigation ever could. And indeed I think that is the problem here.
    I would like to walk through just a series of events in your report and address some of those if I can. I believe you invited us to go over your report.
 Page 120       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. Which report?
    Mr. SHADEGG. The report with respect to Vice President Gore and the question of whether or not he illegally sought hard money contributions in the calls he made from the White House.
    First of all, your report concludes, does it not, Madam Attorney General, that Vice President Gore did, in fact, make calls from his White House office, and I believe it concludes that he did so on 10 or 11 occasions, and that he spoke to at least 45 people; is that correct?
    Ms. RENO. That's correct.
    And I would like to make a point respecting your experience as the third ranking officer in the Attorney General's Office. You fundamentally disagree with me, and, as I mentioned to the chairman earlier, I may not be right, but I have tried to reach the right conclusion. One of the things that I have tried to do is to listen very carefully to my critics. I don't listen to critics who talk to me about polls or throw the New York Times at me. I try to read the New York Times in terms of its substance, and I try to listen to people.
    Mr. SHADEGG. Because my time is very limited, I would like to talk to you about some criticism that I have about this report.
    Ms. RENO. I would like to be able to respond because I think it is only fair to do so, and if you would permit me, I would be grateful because I think it is important to understand the process.
    I have specifically said, when others said, oh, he or she is after you, that's not the issue. The issue is what are the facts, what is the law. And I have tried to follow that. I believe I have done the right thing. I know what it is like to be criticized. I got criticized bitterly by people for asking for the appointment of at least four independent prosecutors and I get criticized bitterly for not asking for it. And I am damned if I do and damned if I don't and so I try to look at the evidence and the law. I try to look at the evidence and the law presented by my critics and thus I would be happy to talk with you about your criticisms.
 Page 121       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SHADEGG. Good. Your report also concludes that some of the money raised by the Vice President was in fact used by the DNC as hard money. That is on page 8. You would agree with that?
    Ms. RENO. That is correct.
    Mr. SHADEGG. Your report also concludes that at least for the purposes of the report, you assume that the statute makes it illegal for the Vice President from the White House to raise hard money contributions.
    Ms. RENO. That is correct.
    Mr. SHADEGG. You make that assumption. OK. You also then, so, for example——
    Ms. RENO. When you say the White House, again we are talking about the official places in the White House.
    Mr. SHADEGG. Let us assume that. So if you had found that Mr. Gore had solicited money for the purpose of influencing an election for a Federal office, that is hard money, from his White House office and had known that he was doing so, you would have concluded at least that an independent counsel was necessary; would you not?
    Ms. RENO. It would depend on the circumstances, sir. Again, what I would try to do is apply the policy that I have described here with respect to whether there were aggravating circumstances.
    Mr. SHADEGG. Putting aside the aggravating circumstances questions, you then conclude, I believe at page 10 of the report, that there is, and in your words, no evidence on which to conclude that the Vice President was raising contributions that were hard money. That is, that were campaign contributions; is that correct?
    Ms. RENO. That he was soliciting hard money.
    Mr. SHADEGG. No evidence to believe that he was doing that.
 Page 122       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. That's correct.
    Mr. SHADEGG. And based on that, you conclude there is no reasonable ground to believe that a further investigation of the allegation that he broke the law is required.
    Ms. RENO. That's correct.
    Mr. SHADEGG. OK. Would you agree with me, Madam Attorney General, that the best evidence of whether or not the Vice President was soliciting hard money campaign contributions would be his own words?
    Ms. RENO. It would be a variety of information.
    Mr. SHADEGG. Certainly it would be fairly good evidence, would it not, his own description of what he was doing?
    Ms. RENO. Yes, but again we wanted to make sure that we did not rely on the Vice President predominantly, that we looked at all the evidence.
    Mr. SHADEGG. But your report pretty well concludes that, No. 1, yes, he made the calls. Yes, some of the money was used as hard money. But he didn't know of the DNC policy to use it as hard money so he didn't know he was raising hard money, and you just agreed with me that if he was raising hard money, that that would appear to be a violation of the law, at least your report assumed that, and that it was likely, absent the issue of aggravating circumstances, that you would have called for an independent investigation, right?
    Ms. RENO. Depending on the circumstances and the aggravating circumstances.
    Mr. SHADEGG. I simply want to go to the Vice President's own press conference on this issue, a press conference, importantly, that occurred before the defense of soft money had occurred. And I want to point out that in the transcript of that press conference, the Vice President does not once say that he believed he was raising soft money.
 Page 123       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I would like to read from that press conference. The first paragraph that I would like to read reads as follows:

    First of all, I want to spell out the facts of my role in the campaign. First of all, to state the obvious, I was a candidate for re-election in the campaign. I worked very hard for the re-election of President Clinton and myself. I am very proud that I was able to be effective in helping to re-elect President Clinton, and I was very proud that I was able to also, as a part of that effort, to help raise campaign funds.

    Now he describes them himself as campaign funds. Then we if we could put on the screen, at a later point in the press conference, he says, we felt, as we were preparing for our campaign, a general sense that we wanted to make sure that we had the ability to compete.
    Now he is talking about our campaign. First he was talking about to help raise campaign funds. Now he is talking about funds ''for our campaign.''
    At an additional point in the campaign, and we can put this one up, I was helping to raise funds for the campaign. I think there is a sentence that is not pertinent. Then he says, but I don't think it is surprising to people that when a President and a Vice President are running for re-election and the Vice President helps to raise funds for the campaign. Each of these appear to me, Madam Attorney General, to be references to his re-election campaign, which would be hard money; would they not?
    Ms. RENO. That's correct.
    Mr. SHADEGG. Then the last one I want to bring to your attention is that in that same portion of the transcript, at the same——
    Ms. RENO. What I answered, when you asked is that correct, contributions to the Gore campaign would be hard money.
 Page 124       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SHADEGG. Right. As a matter of fact, your report finds that he used, although he said at the press conference he used a DNC credit card, in point of fact he used a Clinton/Gore credit card for most of the calls, and your report also finds that; does it not?
    Ms. RENO. That is correct.
    Mr. SHADEGG. At page 14 I believe it says that.
    The last quote I want to bring to you from his press conference is that it says point blank, he says, ''My counsel advises me that there is no controlling legal authority, the phrase that became famous from that press conference, or case that says there was any violation of law whatsoever in the manner in which I asked people to contribute to our re-election campaign.''
    Now, we have had four different references to our campaign, the campaign and, in this case, a specific reference to the manner in which I, the Vice President, asked people to contribute to our reelection campaign.
    It seems to me, Madam Attorney General, that is very strong evidence that he thought he was raising hard money, and my question to you is why nowhere in your lengthy report where you resolve all these doubts in favor of the Vice President and say no independent counsel is necessary, that press conference is not discussed even once and his own words in it aren't used even once?
    I want to suggest that the reason is the Vice President had not had time to shape his testimony to talk about soft money at the press conference. Indeed at the press conference what he says is that he and the President aren't covered by the statute and besides which the statute doesn't apply to him. Now, later your investigative report shows that he didn't believe it was hard money. I think this is pretty clear evidence that at the time he did it he thought it was hard money.
 Page 125       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. Based on the interview of over 200 witnesses, based on the analysis of documents, we disagree.
    Mr. SHADEGG. Why isn't the press conference mentioned in your report, then?
    Mr. LANTOS. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. BURTON. You may answer that, Ms. Reno.
    Ms. RENO. What we have tried to do is to take all the information that was available to us in the investigation. We have looked at the issue with respect to the credit card. As it indicates, we have looked at the documentation. We have looked at the notes on the documentation. We have talked to the people who were solicited, and we have tried to find out from them just what was solicited.
    Mr. SHADEGG. But the press conference is not mentioned in your report.
    Ms. RENO. I don't think it is, sir.
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Lantos.
    Mr. LANTOS. I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, Congressman Fattah.
    Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see everyone. I want to wish everyone a happy holiday season. I am glad the chairman brought us all to town so that we could be here together.
    To the Attorney General, it must be a very difficult job because since Clinton's election he has been followed by a string of allegations, and if one would have appointed an independent counsel on each and every occasion, there probably would not be room for any other activity.
    Since his election in 1992, we have had allegations from Jerry Falwell that he has been involved in murders in Arkansas. We had Whitewater. We had Filegate, Travelgate. Now we have the campaign scandals. And I have left out a few like Gary Aldrich saying that he was sneaking out of the White House at night going downtown to a hotel or something of the sort. So it is difficult to follow all of this. But I think it is safe to assume that as you deal with allegations, there has to be some foundation before one would embark on a process under which an independent counsel would be appointed. And the threshold as set by the Congress, not by you, is that there be specific and credible evidence that the President, not that he beat the Republicans but that he actually did something wrong, before you would cause an independent counsel to be appointed; is that correct?
 Page 126       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. Specific and credible information that he may have violated Federal criminal law.
    Mr. FATTAH. Because in the public arena, and there has probably not been another person who has attracted such wild and comprehensive allegations from his conservative and partisan opponents, but let me move to the question of what happens after an allegation. There is an investigation. And whether it is a preliminary investigation by the Justice Department or whether it is a congressional investigation, investigations are set aside to try to determine what the facts are. Now, Senator Thompson had an investigation in the Senate related to the matters that have brought you here today even though you are headed to a very important meeting on international law enforcement matters. And Senator Thompson spent millions of dollars. He subpoenaed documents and witnesses and depositions. Are there any limitations between the Senate investigation processes and what is available to the Justice Department in terms of proceeding?
    Ms. RENO. I do not really want to discuss what we can do that a congressional committee can't. But it is important that we——
    Mr. FATTAH. Let us walk through it. Now both the Senate committee can issue subpoenas and the Department of Justice can issue subpoenas for documents and for persons to come and present either before a grand jury or before the Senate in that case; is that accurate?
    Ms. RENO. That is correct.
    Mr. FATTAH. So in the search for the truth, there is at least in terms of documents or personal testimony, the Republican majority in the Senate, and in that case also the Republican majority here in the House, we have spent $4 million. We have done hundreds of depositions. In this search for the truth the Republican party, even though it wants to criticize your process, has had processes available to it, to chase the wildest allegations that they want to make about the White House as relates to this matter, and the point I am trying to make is that even though you have been brought here today as part of the committee's oversight responsibility, if there is any feeling on behalf of this committee and its majority, even after the failings of the Thompson committee in the Senate and their—the fact that they have now retired from this process, that this committee could subpoena people, depose people, and we have done it to search out any avenue of information that somehow because of your process being improper that we think should be brought to light and that this committee could make referrals to the Justice Department; isn't that correct?
 Page 127       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. As I understand it, it is, sir.
    Mr. FATTAH. So if we found some evidence that there was some actual wrongdoing or to go back to the original allegation that the Chinese Government had a conspiracy to influence the Presidential election which is how Senator Thompson started out his hearing, and at best we have been able to determine is that to the degree that the Chinese Government had some interest in elections in America, it was in the congressional elections, but to the degree that we found any information, we could refer it to the Justice Department.
    So I guess the question that I am really trying to get at is that you have been brought here today because the majority has a complaint about your decisionmaking process.
    Mr. LANTOS. The gentleman's time has expired. I have to move on to Mr. Cummings.
    Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cummings.
    Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Madam Attorney General, I thank you for being here. In listening to your testimony, I am just very impressed with your independence and your forthrightness and I think that a lot of people in America feel the same way.
    I find it very interesting, a few moments ago, I guess hours ago now, Mr. Lantos was asking you about your relationship with the President. And it is interesting to note that in the past many times when Presidents appointed Attorney Generals they were people who they knew well. In some instances, they were best friends, and with John Kennedy, it was his own brother. President Kennedy appointed his own brother.
    I was just wondering about your feelings with regard to the significance of having a distance, the Attorney General having a certain distance from the President. Do you have any opinions on that just generally?
    Ms. RENO. I try to call it like I see it. I will take the evidence where it leads me. But I have been, in the 4 1/2 years that I have been Attorney General, I have never once felt that I did not have access to the President on issues of policy or administration policy or anything in which access to the President was important or desirable, and I have always found a very good, frank, thoughtful commentator on the other end.
 Page 128       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. CUMMINGS. When it comes to matters like this, though, when you are addressing issues that directly could affect the President and his future, or the Vice President for that matter, does it give you any more comfort when you, say, come before a body like this, or when you are making those decisions, to know that there has always been—that you are not, as Mr. Lantos said, a good friend or a buddy of the President? I mean does it give you any additional level of comfort?
    Ms. RENO. I am just curious, because I think the statute, as I mentioned earlier, assumes that there is a conflict. The President of the United States can fire me whenever he wants, and so you could assume a conflict there. But Congress has set the threshold, and it said that the Attorney General shall determine that threshold, and I call it like I see it.
    Mr. CUMMINGS. I think that you have probably already answered this question by what you just said, but so that the American public can be very clear, when you make these decisions, you don't worry about the President firing you, do you?
    Ms. RENO. I don't worry about the President firing me. As I told the Senate Judiciary Committee at my confirmation hearing, I will follow what the President says, but when I think he asks me to do wrong or to do something like that, I will say, bye, Mr. President, I am going home, but I will get in my truck and go explore America first. And I can tell you that in these 4 1/2 years, the President has never asked me to do anything remotely in the realm of doing something wrong.
    Mr. CUMMINGS. A little bit earlier, a statement was made, and it was more it seemed an implication that perhaps you may have felt that the President or the Vice President were above the law. You don't feel that way, do you?
    Ms. RENO. I have spent an awful lot of time subjecting them to this really stiff scrutiny of the law. I have, as has been indicated, asked for the appointment of an independent counsel with respect to the President. I will follow the law, and I will apply it.
 Page 129       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. CUMMINGS. I guess I speak from the standpoint of a defense counsel when I ask this question and make this statement. We have spent a lot of time here talking about why you didn't appoint a special prosecutor, and there has been substantial criticism, but I guess there is something that we haven't talked about a lot here today, and that is fairness to the person being investigated. I think it is very important in our judicial system, and in this whole, in all that you do, I guess, you take into consideration fairness, not just from a standpoint of the State's—I am sorry, the country's, the Federal Government trying to bring charges, but also fairness to the person being investigated. Could you speak on that for just a moment, please?
    Ms. RENO. I think one of the worst things imaginable is to charge a person or to take action with respect to a person who is innocent, and I think the prosecutor in America has a very important responsibility to make sure that innocent people don't get prosecuted and that the guilty get prosecuted and convicted according to principles of due process and fair play, and that they are convicted in a court and not in headlines.
    Mr. CUMMINGS. And so I guess when you talk about waking up at 3 or 4 a.m., and trying to figure all of this out, I guess you are looking at both sides of that, the side of the Federal Government and your responsibility as a sworn officer, and at the same time fairness to those who may be accused.
    Ms. RENO. My responsibility as a member of the cabinet of the Federal Government as Attorney General is the same: It is to protect the innocent and to convict the guilty, and I owe that responsibility to the American people, because they are the Government.
    Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much.
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Horn.
    Ms. RENO. Mr. Chairman, would you give me 3 minutes?
    Mr. BURTON. I will give you 4 minutes.
 Page 130       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. BURTON. The committee will recess subject to the call of the Chair, but don't anybody move.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. BURTON. The committee will come to order.
    I think that was about 2 minutes and 13 seconds, so you're pretty fast.
    Ms. RENO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. BURTON. Mr. Horn.
    Mr. HORN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    It is good to see you, Madam Attorney General. I can recall the fine job you did when as a member of the Civil Rights Commission, I went to Dade County with my colleagues on a terrible murder situation, and you were a most impressive State's attorney and you have been a most impressive Attorney General in many ways. But I am going to raise one question with you that I would like to see what your thinking is.
    We are simply amazed as we get into this about the abuse of illegal foreign money, the money that is laundered through noncitizens or straw donors, and what I want to bring up is a situation where money seems to have clearly carried the political favor in ways that would never have been dreamed possible if we thought about it.
    I want to ask you a few questions about the dog track case in Hudson, WI, and I do it for two reasons. One is a very able Federal judge, Barbara Crabb, who was nominated and appointed by President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, who is handling this case, and has had this to say about it. Quote: ''Drawing all reasonable inferences from the undisputed facts, I believe there is a distinct possibility that improper political influence affected the decision.''
    Second, I raise this question because I think it is going to shed some light on what is going on in some parts of the Department of Justice. By now, the facts are pretty well-known. The career professionals in the Department of the Interior that has jurisdiction over Indian gaming law at the local level approved an application by Indian tribes to take land into trust for a casino at a greyhound track in Hudson, WI. Then, after the first round of approvals, very high-priced Washington lobbyists began to weigh in against the dog track.
 Page 131       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    They had meetings with the President, with the Vice President and his staff, with seeing your White House staff, with the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, with the chair of the re-election campaign of the President, no stone was left unturned. The night before Secretary Babbitt made the decision to reject the application, which was almost unheard of, practically every single Indian gaming request has been approved by the Secretary of the Interior, one of the lobbyists for the dog track opponents, had a $420,000 fund-raiser for the President of the United States. He sat next to the President that night before, your Deputy sat next to the President, the night before, Gorelick.
    Now, the Secretary of the Interior indicated to one lifelong friend
the next day that the poorer tribes—and that was true, this was a fight between Indian tribes that are very well off in Minnesota, the neighboring State, who already have a casino, didn't want the competition. The members of the poorer tribes in Wisconsin that wanted the license, were getting about $6,000 per year.
    [The information referred to follows:]
    INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 323 HERE
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]

    Mr. HORN. The people in the tribes in Minnesota get a delivery to them from the casino receipts of $400,000 per person. They are not exactly people without means, and the ones in Wisconsin are. They have poor education, poor health care, and when the Secretary made that decision, he made victims out of that tribe. He turned his back on good schooling and on good health care.
    The White House policies and huge campaign contributions, said the Secretary to a lifelong friend, he said, the poor tribes are going to lose. White House politics, huge campaign contributions from tribal opponents of the Hudson Dog Track had carried the day.
 Page 132       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Now, before we begin, I want to make one point about fairness. The Hudson Dog Track matter is not some inside-the-beltway congressional dispute. It involves real people, and that is what I mentioned, people that are very poor, that they haven't been able to help themselves, but that a casino would help them. They would get medical insurance, health clinics, schools, hospitals, care for the elderly. They would be able to build roads. And when you think of that gap of $6,000 a person for the poor tribes and $400,000 for the rich ones, it makes you shudder.
    Now, let me ask you a few questions on this round.
    Madam Attorney General, there is currently an investigation to determine whether the independent counsel should be appointed in the Hudson Dog Track matter. That investigation is being conducted by the Department of Justice lawyers; am I correct on that?
    Ms. RENO. That is correct.
    Mr. HORN. There is also an ongoing civil lawsuit involving the Hudson Dog Track; is that correct?
    Ms. RENO. That is correct.
    Mr. HORN. And that is being defended by Justice Department lawyers; is that correct?
    Ms. RENO. That is correct.
    Mr. HORN. So within the Department of Justice, you have lawyers both defending and investigating the same matter. How do we deal with this? It seems a clear conflict of interest, and if you were a law professor I think you would give this case to your students for a final exam and I wondered what you think they would say?
    Ms. RENO. Well, here is what I think they would say. When I came to Washington, I was immediately faced with situations where we might be investigating a prison guard, but at the same time, defending the lawsuit against him, and I asked about this potential for conflict. And when the Civil Division or the Environment and Natural Resources Division might be representing one part of the Government and another part of the Government have other interests, we tried to build an appropriate structure that will permit that, and we constantly review it to determine whether it's appropriate.
 Page 133       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    As you have pointed out, there is now a preliminary investigation underway, and time will tell what that dictates. But we have been very careful in this instance to try to make sure that we have separate teams. Each team reports to the Department's senior leadership and to me, and even then, the issue of conflict arises and we try to address it. I cannot comment on the pending preliminary investigation, as that is obviously ongoing, and we are proceeding on that.
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired. I will yield to you 5 minutes on the next round.
    Mr. Kucinich.
    Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Reno, I would like to go back to the beginning of this particular session and ask you to respond to some, what might be considered very fundamental questions, such as, for those viewers, what is an independent counsel? How do you define it?
    Ms. RENO. An independent counsel is a person appointed by a special division of the court, and my understanding is that the people, the three-judge panel on this special division is named by the Chief Justice. The independent counsel has the authority to pursue the investigation that the special division outlines, together with related matters, and we can refer additional matters that may not be related, but may have some relevance.
    The independent counsel is appointed after application by the Attorney General and after the Attorney General has determined that the evidence is specific and credible to indicate that this person may have violated Federal law, and that there is no need for further investigation.
    Mr. KUCINICH. Why is it called independent?
    Ms. RENO. It is called independent because there is a need in certain situations such as with covered persons where the Congress has presumed that a conflict exists to have someone who does not have that conflict make an independent judgment.
 Page 134       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. KUCINICH. So that there might be a conflict within Justice, let's say, or a conflict within the administration?
    Ms. RENO. If there were a conflict within Justice, for example, if I had a personal conflict, I have been friends with somebody for all of our lives or something like that, then the Deputy Attorney General would be the deciding authority.
    Mr. KUCINICH. What about the independent counsel himself or herself? What are the specific powers? Once an independent counsel is named, what can an independent counsel then do?
    Ms. RENO. An independent counsel has all the authority of the Attorney General, including the power to use the grand jury, to enter into plea bargains, and to grant immunity. The only person that can remove the independent counsel is the Attorney General.
    Mr. KUCINICH. And have you ever had reason to consider removing an independent counsel? If you found an independent counsel was in possible conflict, would you remove an independent counsel, or if the independent counsel was in conflict?
    Ms. RENO. It would depend on the circumstances.
    Mr. KUCINICH. For example, a report out of the Rocky Mountain News in Denver, CO, October 22, 1997, points out that Kenneth Starr, who is an independent prosecutor, has volunteered to help Paula Jones gratis in her lawsuit against the President, and has demonstrated, this is a direct quote, ''his regard for the appearance of a conflict''—''his regard for the appearance of a conflict of interest by contributing to Republican candidates and continuing to represent tobacco companies and defense contractors.'' That is a direct quote from the Rocky Mountain News.
    Now, you, as the Attorney General, have the responsibility for, as you say, reviewing the conduct of the independent counsel. And I would ask you, has this matter ever been called to your attention?
 Page 135       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. That specific matter has not been called to my attention, but we—I don't think—what I have tried to do is avoid commenting on the activities of the independent counsel in any public fashion so that I don't do anything that would impair the independence of it.
    Mr. KUCINICH. And Madam Attorney General, I respect that, and I think that you have handled yourself in a manner before this committee which is very fair and impartial——
    Ms. RENO. Let me point out one point so that I can clarify. I have seen press accounts—when I indicated that I was not aware of the specific situation, I have seen press accounts that there have been political contributions, but that is just to correct the record.
    Mr. KUCINICH. I guess what is instructive here is that when we use the word ''independent,'' that word has a lot of meaning to people. For example, we have one Independent in this whole Congress, Mr. Sanders. People presume that you are independent of political parties, that you are independent of political influence. If evidence is submitted that perhaps an independent counsel is not, it raises questions about the whole notion of independence.
    So I think in these hearings, we may come to some kind of a conclusion that may help us strengthen the whole idea of the independent counsel and the independent counsel statute so that we can truly have counsels who are independent, if that is what we are seeking here. Furthermore, I would like to echo the concerns expressed by the Independent Member of this Congress, Bernie Sanders, about we have gone through all of these hearings and yet, no effort is being made, bipartisan effort, to bring about campaign finance reform.
    Now, when I am back in my district talking to people about these hearings, they feel that a lot of this is a waste of time and they particularly feel it is a waste of time when they don't see any action being taken about the underlying problem which exists here, which is there is a problem with the campaign financing laws and if this Congress doesn't go ahead and fix those laws after all of this, this exercise will be seen as being hypocritical and totally a sham.
 Page 136       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired. I would now yield my 5 minutes to Mr. Horn.
    Mr. HORN. I thank the chairman. To continue the discussion, Madam Attorney General, let me ask you a few more questions.
    As I understand what is going on, and you say you have a way to resolve this within the Department of Justice with different teams and so forth, we seem to have one of those teams vigorously defending Secretary of the Interior Babbitt, who was ordered, really, by the White House to make this decision against decisions he and other Secretaries had readily approved. They are apparently not only defending Mr. Babbitt, they are defending the President, because he did sit next to this lobbyist and $420,000 was delivered as a result of that party.
    Harold Ickes and Bruce Lindsey, longtime Presidential aide and friend, and what gets me here is the issue of documents when there is a civil case involved, civil litigants have been deprived of various documents they have sought, and you have gone to court, as I understand it, or the Department of Justice representing you have gone to court to protect these particular claims of privilege. It just seems to me that is very unfair in terms of the civil claimants; namely, the Indians in this case.
    So how do you expect the American people really to have confidence about this matter, because here is truly an appearance situation, where no matter how—I like your business of, you know, I will take the heat, et cetera, I like people that way. On the other hand, you have the problem of what do the American people think when they see this is what your attorneys are doing, they are spending their time at the White House. They aren't spending their time with the poor Indians, and how do you explain it?
    Ms. RENO. I want to really make sure that we have clarified the issue, because a lot has been included in the chairman's letter to me and in the statement that you just made.
 Page 137       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    First of all, I want to put at rest any suggestion that the Department has invoked executive privilege with respect to any documents in the Hudson Dog Track matter. As you know, we have not been asked by your committee to produce any documents in this matter and therefore, could not have invoked any privileges against your committee. Moreover, the White House did not consult with the Department in connection with its response to document requests that it received from this committee. Thus, the Department has only raised objections based on privilege with respect to document requests in the civil litigation, and I would note that principles governing the assertion of executive privilege, vis-a-vis Congress and the resolution of privilege issues in civil discovery, are very different.
    Now, you say, oh, they have to go to court. The case is in court, and the perfect answer here is, if these claims of privilege are not legitimate, I believe the judge who is presiding is the judge to whom you referred, and I think that she will judge fairly.
    Mr. HORN. Well, I certainly hope she does, but the question would be also, does this committee have a right to look at those documents? As you know, three or four letters were sent to you. They were never replied to until the Assistant Attorney General had one hand-delivered to us after several months this morning, and he doesn't use the word executive ''privy'' note with interest in his letter, he uses the word ''privilege.'' And I hope you're right, that the judge will say, this is nonsense, and that she will demand that these files be turned over so they can have a fair trial, shall we say.
    But I think our worry here is, do we have two standards in Justice, when we have all of those people that Justice attorneys are helping, Secretary Babbitt, the President, Bruce Lindsey and Harold Ickes, and we have a group of poor Indians out there that would like a little justice out of the court system. Now, that's fine, but we shouldn't have the perception that the Department of Justice is against them.
    Ms. RENO. As I have pointed out, the matter is now in a preliminary investigation, and we will see what the course of that investigation reveals.
 Page 138       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. HORN. Well, let me just note here that claims of privilege we don't find—well, the Congressional Research Service, we turned this whole thing over to, and they gave us a number of the precedents on this, and the chairman has already put that in the record. We would be glad to send it to you again. They didn't find any claim of privilege asserted in this case very persuasive, and you as Attorney General or your representatives have fought on the side of the President to keep documents from the Independent Counsel in the Espy case, as I understand, and Justice has fought on the side of the President to keep documents from the Independent Counsel in the Whitewater investigation. Now, we are fighting on the side of the disappointed—against the disappointed tribes in the Hudson Dog Track case. That, I think, bothers all of us.
    Again, we are talking the appearance. You might—your people might be the fairest in the world, but they aren't acting that way when they sort of stiff this committee like the White House Counsel's office does, and has for 5 years, I might add, having been here for 5 years and seen it. I just don't see how we can rely on Justice and your appointees or your career service, as the case may be, when they appear to be the chief supporters of secrecy, and that bothers me.
    Ms. RENO. The Department's assertion of privileges with respect to documents requested in the civil litigation was consistent with our prior interpretation of the relevant privilege doctrines and court precedents. If you will look carefully, it is unclear to what extent the Congressional Research Service memorandum disagrees with the Department's position, since that memorandum focuses primarily on a very different question: The assertion of privileges by the executive branch as against a document request from Congress. It bears re-emphasis that this Department has not invoked any privilege in the dog track matter with respect to your committee, and in any event, as I point out, a neutral judge is going to make the decision, as is appropriate in the litigation in Wisconsin.
 Page 139       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I do not know what the preliminary investigation will reveal. If it triggers an independent counsel statute, I am going to do it.
    Mr. HORN. I might say, I served under 11 Attorney Generals in a row at Justice and I must say my favorite one was Elliott Richardson and you know what he did in similar circumstances, and I think both of you could continue to be heroes if you do what he did.
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Blagojevich. Did I pronounce your name correctly?
    Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Pretty close, Mr. Chairman. I am going to have a congressional committee on how to pronounce my last name.
    Madam Attorney General, I just want to see if we can elaborate a little bit on the issue regarding your decision to not disclose the internal memorandum between FBI Director Freeh and yourself regarding this ongoing criminal investigation. Can you tell us to the best of your knowledge some of the previous patterns, precedences and so forth regarding open criminal files that the Attorney General is responsible for and decisions made by some of your predecessors with regard to releasing contents of those files to congressional oversight committees?
    Ms. RENO. We have provided that in a previous letter. We received the chairman's response that cited some cases. We have in the correspondence that was delivered last night indicated that those are closed investigations which present a different problem, and we reiterate the three points that we have tried to raise, which is, first of all, people should feel free to speak their mind to the Attorney General and know that the decision is hers and that she stops there, and that people ought to be able to talk freely without thinking they are going to be held before congressional committees, and everybody is subjected to this scrutiny. I knew what I was getting into, and I think it is my responsibility, and I will be delighted to continue to exercise that.
 Page 140       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The second is just laying out for people what you are going to do in an investigation is the dumbest thing I know to do. I mean if you are conducting a professional, effective investigation, you are going to keep it close to the vest and do it the right way.
    Third, if Congress gets into it, you have some real issues with respect to separation of powers, and Congress is basically an open forum. Its processes are open, and it is just inconsistent with the conduct of an efficient investigation.
    As I indicated and ran out of time, I think I have a responsibility to be accountable to the American people and the way I have always tried to fulfill that accountability is by saying, while an investigation is under way, don't make it public, but let me try to answer questions when it is concluded.
    Finally, something alluded to earlier, there are some people that may get hurt that should not be hurt by publication of documents. I don't know about this one, but you have got to make sure that the processes are fair and that they seek justice for all.
    Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Is it not a fact, Madam Attorney General, that some of your predecessors, irrespective of the political party that they were appointed by, took the same approach in previous investigations, and if that is the case, can you elaborate on some of those?
    Ms. RENO. I do not have the correspondence with me, but I would refer you to the letter that we first sent the chairman in response to his request.
    Mr. KUCINICH. And this is the letter from Charles Cooper?
    Ms. RENO. It relates—it cites Mr. Cooper's letter.
    Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Cooper was part of which administration?
    Ms. RENO. Reagan.
    Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. The Reagan administration. And the position that Mr. Cooper enunciated is essentially the position you have undertaken here; is that correct?
 Page 141       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. That is correct, and what I have tried to point out is that I have tried to look at the institution, rely on the lawyers that advised Attorneys General in President Reagan's, President Bush's administration, as well as President Carter's.
    We shouldn't have shifting sands and shifting foundations. The institution has construed it, career lawyers have construed it, and we should work together to understand how that applies, not just in a Republican administration, but in a Republican and Democratic administration, so that we can ensure that investigations and prosecutions in this country are nonpartisan and nonpolitical.
    Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Thank you very much.
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
    Mr. Gilman.
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Madam Attorney General and Director, FBI Director Louis Freeh, we thank you for making yourselves available today to help us clarify some of these issues that have been troubling our oversight committee.
    Madam Attorney General, are you aware of any restraints or any limitation whatsoever on the FBI agent's ability to follow leads and investigate covered persons as defined under the independent counsel statute where there is yet no independent counsel appointed to deal with the allegations about this particular person?
    Ms. RENO. I have tried to stress—and I hope you will ask Director Freeh about this, because I want to make sure that every transaction and every lead is followed. I think Congressman Cox had a whole litany of issues. I can't comment on those issues except to say, this investigation is not over. We are proceeding with all leads. We are trying to make sure that we leave no stone unturned.
    If at a point along the way there is specific and credible information developed that a covered person may have violated the law, then I have got to trigger the preliminary investigation, and if it proves correct, I have to trigger the appointment of an independent counsel; and I am prepared to do that.
 Page 142       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. GILMAN. Well, before an independent counsel is appointed, can they still go after covered persons as defined?
    Ms. RENO. If you go after covered persons, you have to have specific and credible information that they may have violated the law, and the preliminary investigation is instituted. You can also go after transactions, and as you develop the information concerning transactions, you can—it may develop that a covered person is involved.
    We are going to make sure we pursue every lead. But my ultimate responsibility is the legal decision that I make, myself alone, and that is whether the independent counsel statute has been triggered. You cannot investigate a covered person if the independent counsel statute has been triggered.
    Mr. GILMAN. It has not been triggered, you mean?
    Ms. RENO. If it has not been triggered—I am sorry, yes.
    Mr. GILMAN. So doesn't it make a pretty difficult threshold for the FBI to pursue some of these leads if an independent counsel definition has not yet been triggered?
    Ms. RENO. We are trying to make sure that we leave no stone unturned and that every lead is pursued. If it is pursued and specific and credible information is not developed, then we cannot pursue it. But, for example, if we—under the situation in the notifications that I have filed, if we proceed with our investigations across the board and develop evidence, additional evidence concerning the violation of 607, then the statute specifically provides that the preliminary investigation is instituted.
    Mr. GILMAN. And that would mean that you have already then triggered an independent counsel to permit that to be pursued?
    Ms. RENO. I would have triggered the act, but the preliminary investigation would determine whether further investigation was necessary to show that the evidence was specific and credible, or that it was not.
 Page 143       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. GILMAN. And you would make that determination; is that correct?
    Ms. RENO. I would make it just like I have made it on at least four occasions and on additional referrals.
    Mr. GILMAN. So if the Director of the FBI says we have some potentially covered personnel, then you would have to make a decision as to whether or not to trigger the independent counsel in order to enable them to proceed; is that correct?
    Ms. RENO. Just exactly what I have been doing. I mean, I have triggered it just with respect to this investigation four times now.
    Mr. GILMAN. Well, doesn't that somewhat create a ''catch-22'' position in order to be able to bring in a covered person?
    Ms. RENO. I don't think so. It just requires care in making sure that the independent counsel statute is complied with.
    Mr. GILMAN. Madam Attorney General, you indicated on several occasions today that you are not concluding that this is a final determination on an independent counsel, and if there is some substantial information or evidence that comes forward, you would still consider the appointment of an independent counsel at a later date; is that correct?
    Ms. RENO. I would even tell you that—you talk about substantial evidence. All the statute requires is specific and credible information that the Federal criminal law may have been violated. So I don't know that it even rises to the level of substantial. But we are constantly looking at that issue to make sure that we don't miss something that would trigger the statute.
    Mr. GILMAN. So you are not closing down the opportunity then at some later date, if there is credible evidence, that you would be able to move ahead with an independent counsel?
 Page 144       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. Right. And I wanted to make that point to Congressman Cox and to others who have lists of things that—what about this and what about that? I can't—as I expressed my frustration to the chairman, I wish I could sit down with you and say, this is everything that we are doing, see if you've got any other ideas about what we can do better.
    That is not the way it works in this country in terms of the authority of the prosecutor, but we are pursuing every lead that we can.
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Tierney.
    Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you, Ms. Reno, for spending all of this time with us.
    As riveting as it is to go over and over the issue of phone calls and where they might have been made from and whether they were soliciting hard or soft money or no money at all, I think we have heard extensively on that issue. I would like to broaden the scope a bit, if we might, to discuss money in politics generally and a little bit of the hard money-soft money distinction. That is a distinction that I think is being made, and I think that it goes to the issue that most people are concerned about, which is just the tremendous amount of money and the perceived, if not the real, need by candidates to get more money to get their message out at least to the extent that the opposition may be doing that; and the extent to which some people think there may have been some coordination between candidacies and so-called issue ads, and whether or not that is a violation or a concern that we should have.
    If the committee members were around, we had a tape that we were going to show—I don't know.
 Page 145       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BURTON. I beg your pardon? Which tape are you referring to?
    Mr. TIERNEY. He'll know.
    Passing on that, there was—there have been discussions, on both the Democratic and the Republican side, about whether or not certain so-called issue advocacy advertisements were, in fact, campaign advertisements.
    I was going to show you a tape, and I see it is sporadically coming up and going on on the side, but the issue is whether or not particular ads were, instead of being advocacy ads or issue ads, actually campaign ads run by different candidates; and whether or not those people, certain candidates, had coordinated the efforts of their campaigns with the people doing issue ads.
    Is this a concern under the current campaign finance reform? Would the coordination of issue advertisements or issue advocacy advertisements and campaign ads be a problem that we should be concerned about?
    Ms. RENO. I have not looked at the campaign reform package in detail, because I have thought it important for me to concentrate on the investigation and on performing my responsibility here. As I have said in the past, coordination between the Presidential candidates and their national parties on national party spending, at least up until a certain point and during the time covered by the events in question here, was assumed by the FEC. Congress created, under the FECA, the FEC that set administration—provided for the administration of the act and set the policy for the act; and they are currently considering this issue.
    The whole area is a confusing area and a very complex area of the law, but just to give you some indications, these cases are not—each varies a bit on the facts, and they are not directly on point because they do not directly relate to national parties. But two circuits have recently held that an advertisement does not constitute express advocacy subject to the FECA unless the ad uses explicit terms, such as vote for, elect, support or defeat. There are two other cases that indicate perhaps to the contrary, and I think it is very important for the American political process that we do everything we can to clarify what can and cannot be done.
 Page 146       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    It is a very difficult area of the law, because of the first amendment issues that have arisen, but if we could work together to come up with something that gives people an understanding of what they clearly can and can't do, it would make such good sense.
    Mr. TIERNEY. Well, I think this is a fair question to ask, so I will.
    Do you agree, at least, that there is a large amount of misunderstanding, or at least uncertainty, as to what is allowed and what is not allowed with respect to raising moneys and spending moneys under the current statute on campaign finance laws?
    Ms. RENO. Actually, there is a great debate on that issue, and just looking at those four opinions that I cited to you, arising in different contexts, there is clear confusion.
    There is also the issue of the first amendment and Buckley v. Valeo and what can and can't be done under the Constitution in terms of political expression. It is a very complex area, and the best way to address it is for people of goodwill to sit down and figure out how we come up with something that makes sense.
    Mr. TIERNEY. Ms. Reno, whenever there is a vote in Congress, if any particular Congressman or Congresswoman voted on a matter that affected the economic interest of any one of his or her major campaign contributors, wouldn't there at least be the perception by some that there was some conflict of interest involved there?
    Ms. RENO. It would all depend on the circumstances, but you have to look at each case, and what-ifs are not good for prosecutors to respond to.
    Mr. TIERNEY. Well, I guess it goes to another time due to the prospect that maybe we all ought to take a good, hard look at some public financing of campaigns in order to try to avoid all of these finer distinction areas that are so difficult and so complex and end up with us here in endless hours of hearings on fine points of where the phone call was made, whether or not the phone call was made, or what kind of money was solicited.
 Page 147       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And I will end with that. Thank you very much for your time.
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Shays.
    Mr. SHAYS. Greetings. I was reluctant to come today because on my wall is a bill that you and I worked together on closely, a wonderful note from you, and I have lots of respect for you, and yet I feel I have strong disagreements that could affect that friendship. I think if I could have that feeling, I wonder how you have a feeling with the President of the United States whom you clearly have to work with.
    To me, it is about two issues: accountability, you hold people who commit illegal acts accountable; and it is about, frankly, reform. This Congress exposes wrongdoing, but then reforms the system. We saw it happen in 1974; we saw it happen in the HUD investigation where we brought forth reform, so to me, accountability and reform are both the same thing.
    Mr. Cox asked, I think, an incredible question. He said, under the independent counsel statute, have you commenced a preliminary investigation on John Huang? You said, no. He asked, under the independent counsel statute, have you commenced a preliminary investigation on Charlie Trie? You said, no.
    Then, under Antonio Pan, you said, no. Webb Hubbell, I don't know the answer, we will come back. Mark Middleton, you said, no.
    I want to ask you, under the independent counsel statute, have you committed to a preliminary investigation of the Vice President for his fund-raising?
    Ms. RENO. I have triggered an investigation of the Vice President and have made available through approval of the court the fact that I have with respect to only 607.
    Mr. SHAYS. So that isn't under the independent counsel statute? You did it before that? This is not under the independent counsel statute? You didn't trigger the phase——
 Page 148       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. Let me just give you the—because we received a 30-day letter from both Senator Hatch and Congressman Hyde on——
    Mr. SHAYS. I am asking if you triggered the 90-day finding?
    Ms. RENO. We will come back to that in just a minute. Let me get the letter for you.
    [The letter referred to follows:]
    INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 324 TO 336 HERE
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]

    Mr. SHAYS. Let me just go on then.
    Under the independent counsel statute, have you committed—commenced a preliminary investigation of Ron Carey of the fund-raising of the Teamsters and the possible connection between the DNC and the Teamsters? Under the independent counsel statute, have you commenced a preliminary investigation of Secretary Babbitt and the Indian gaming?
    Ms. RENO. As I testified earlier, there is a preliminary investigation under way.
    Mr. SHAYS. As I look at it, it seems to me that basically you have decided to focus very narrowly, and that you are missing kind of the big, what I call ''corrupt'' picture. You see a jigsaw puzzle, and I see one that on the table would seem to me that you would want to commence an independent counsel for a variety of people that Mr. Cox asked you about and I have asked you about. It seems to me like you bump into the trees, and you don't take a walk back and look at the forest.
    Let me ask you, under the independent counsel statute that exists today, would you have commenced an investigation of Watergate when you had these three no-good people who basically broke—maybe good, but they broke in. Would you have triggered one? Would your mind have said, ''Maybe it is going to lead to something?''
 Page 149       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. Watergate? You think that is two-bit?
    Mr. SHAYS. No, I don't think it is two-bit.
    Ms. RENO. I didn't think it was two-bit.
    Mr. SHAYS. Don't change the subject. The issue was, when you saw what you thought was a break-in, and people thought it was not going to lead anywhere, would you have triggered it?
    Ms. RENO. I disagree with your suggestion that it wasn't going to lead anywhere.
    Mr. SHAYS. So you don't think these issues are going to lead anywhere? You don't think any of these are as significant as a break-in to Watergate?
    Ms. RENO. Let me suggest to you what is important. If you and the chairman and Mr. Lantos had specific—there was specific and credible information that you may have violated the law and all the people on the front row served on the committee with you, and they, because they served with you, might be part; but there was no specific and credible evidence that they were part of this big picture that you talk about. I don't think that they should be pushed along into it.
    I think——
    Mr. SHAYS. I have a unanimous consent I want to make. I just need to make a unanimous consent before my time expires here.
    Mr. BURTON. What is it?
    Mr. SHAYS. We have discussed a number of concerns that we have about the Department and its potential conflicts; and in order to assist you in reviewing these conflicts, I would like to enter into the record, for your review, records relating to Mark Middleton and his dealings with various foreign nationals, the Lippo Group and the DNC; records relating to Charlie Trie; records relating to Antonio Pan, and records relating to Webster Hubbell as it relates to $100,000 of the Lippo payments and his withholding of information. And I would submit that for the record, and then ask that it be provided to the Department.
 Page 150       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BURTON. Without objection.
    [NOTE.—The cassette tapes may be found in committee files.]
    [The transcription of the two cassette tapes, and the information referred to follows:]

Telephone call placed by Webster Hubbell from the Federal Correctional Institution, 14601 Burbridge Road SE., Cumberland, Maryland 21501, to Suzy Hubbell
Tape 27A; Date: 6/19/96; Time: 17:53; Duration 01:53

    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Hi Gorgeous.
    CAROLINE HUBBELL: How are you?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Great, now that I hear your voice. I miss you. I wrote you a long letter today. I just miss you. How are you?
    CAROLINE HUBBELL: Good. I took a little nap.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: That was your biggest problem at work last time.
    CAROLINE HUBBELL: What being tired?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: No, that your kids got a nap and you didn't. Is Mommy home yet?
    CAROLINE HUBBELL: Yes, you all have the best sense of karma.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: The bond is so strong between us.
    CAROLINE HUBBELL: You all know where the other one is.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Well, the force is strong between us.
    CAROLINE HUBBELL: It's a good thing.
 Page 151       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: The force is strong in us too. Anything going on?
    CAROLINE HUBBELL: No, not with me. Mom is taking something downstairs.
    [Suzy gets on the phone.]
    SUZY HUBBELL: Hi.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Hi.
    SUZY HUBBELL: How are you?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Fine, it is about to get really loud here because they are about to do mail. Can I call you back in 15 minutes?
    SUZY HUBBELL: Sure.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: I love you. Everything ok?
    SUZY HUBBELL: Sure.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Have you heard from anybody?
    SUZY HUBBELL: No
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Well, I'll call you in 15 minutes if that is good.
    SUZY HUBBELL: Sure.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: OK, bye.
Telephone call placed by Webster Hubbell from the Federal Correctional Institution, 14601 Burbridge Road SE., Cumberland, Maryland 21501, to Suzy Hubbell
Tape 27B; Date: 6/19/96; Time 18:05; Duration 11:35

    SUZY HUBBELL: Hi.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Hi baby. How are you?
 Page 152       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    SUZY HUBBELL: Fine. What do we want for dinner?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: You want Lebanese take out?
    SUZY HUBBELL: No, we aren't going to do that. What can we cook?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Oh, what can you cook? Let's see. Let me think. Of course, I always look in my freezer and see what we have. But since I'm not there I am going to assume that you have a nice pork tenderloin, grilled veal, lemon butter and a light pasta to go with it.
    SUZY HUBBELL: I think we are going to have pasta with grilled vegetables and chicken.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: That would be good.
    SUZY HUBBELL: And light.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: OK, what's going on?
    SUZY HUBBELL: Not much, I'm back to work you know.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: How was that?
    SUZY HUBBELL: It was ok.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: OK. Well anything going on?
    SUZY HUBBELL: Not really. All the animals (inaudible) are still in a to do of course.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Marsha back?
    SUZY HUBBELL: Yes.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: How is Marsh?
    SUZY HUBBELL: I guess she is ok.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Good. I talked to Laura a little while ago. No news. Of course the Republicans have trouble copying the report for anybody that is named. If they can give it to the press they will, but they can't give it to lawyers of the parties till tomorrow now. I read the NY Times and it upset me, but I'm all right now. That was Sunday's Times. I'm glad we are going to have to delay the book. One, I'd like to respond to some of this. I see things that other people don't see.
 Page 153       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    SUZY HUBBELL: You what?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: See things other people don't see
    SUZY HUBBELL: Right. Well, you should respond to it.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: I know, but I can't right now.
    SUZY HUBBELL: OK.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Are you ok?
    SUZY HUBBELL: Yes.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Well, you are sounding frazzled.
    SUZY HUBBELL: No, I'm just trying to make a (inaudible).
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Heard from anybody?
    SUZY HUBBELL: No, saw Bob today. He was sick last week.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Bob?
    SUZY HUBBELL: Hathaway.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: There was an article in last Sunday's NY Times on Cape Cod.
    SUZY HUBBELL: On the sea gulls?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: No, on Cape Cod. And I saw where you were and read about it. I got lots of information out of the article. It was in the travel and leisure section of the NY Times.
    SUZY HUBBELL: Very good.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Well, today is my day off so I have been writing and reading and getting ready to go walking if it doesn't rain on me. And I'm a little down but not too bad.
    SUZY HUBBELL: Why are you down?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Well, I read the Sunday NY Times.
 Page 154       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    SUZY HUBBELL: I haven't seen it. What does it say?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: It just goes over what the allegations were.
    SUZY HUBBELL: Well, those were the ones that were leaked. Remember?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: I know, but it is what everybody believes. It doesn't matter what is in the report.
    SUZY HUBBELL: Well, it does to people like us (inaudible).
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: No it doesn't. None of it matters to Ken Starr. He has his own investigation going on.
    SUZY HUBBELL: I know. Honey, it is ok.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: I know. And I heard they started the trial in Arkansas and apparently they named Bruce as an unindicted co-conspirator.
    SUZY HUBBELL: Bruce is pretty upset.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: I bet he is.
    SUZY HUBBELL: He is afraid that because of that they will stop letting him travel with the President.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah, in other words just damage him with allegation and never do anything to him. Cripple the President. Take away his best friend and his advisers.
    SUZY HUBBELL: Well, I am going to have dinner with Bruce tomorrow night.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Well give him my best. If anybody asks how I'm doing just say I'm doing fine and holding up.
    SUZY HUBBELL: I want to know if I can tell Mickey now that we are delaying the book.
 Page 155       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yes.
    SUZY HUBBELL: I hadn't said I'd talked to her. And I'd like to tell Mickey that.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah, but let's think about how we are going to say it.
    SUZY HUBBELL: I thought we already discussed that on Sunday.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: We did, but what would you say?
    SUZY HUBBELL: To Mickey I would say that we were delaying the book and the outward reason is that all of these lawyers are recommending that he not publish a book in the middle of all this and jeopardize your release. It could etc. and to Mickey I'll tell the rest of what we have talked about.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Just make sure he knows that is not for the public consumption. I think you can tell him that—still what I want people to understand is that the process is healthy for me. It is going to help me to frame the right book the right way but I had to get it out.
    SUZY HUBBELL: And I want him to understand that eventually there will be a book but it will be the book you want to write.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: But there may be parts I may not be able to talk about. I'm just not sure yet. I'm not going to breach anything personal. I think that is what you can tell Mickey. When people want things to be private they will always be private with me. I have written (inaudible) today and said it may be delayed because of all this. I'm starting to tell people about it in writing. I don't know that I will tell Mike. I guess I ought to.
    SUZY HUBBELL: Why?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: He's my best friend.
    SUZY HUBBELL: Just tell him not to.
 Page 156       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: I'll just limit it and not get into the other reason, you know.
    SUZY HUBBELL: No, nobody needs to know that but the few people up here like Mickey and Marsha. Is there anybody else that needs to know that up here maybe Vernon?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: I'm sure the word will get around—if you see them.
    SUZY HUBBELL: What about Linda?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah, I think you better tell Linda or she is gonna die. Well if she says something like ''I guess Webb couldn't write (inaudible) the book'' don't get out of joint. Just say the book was written, but Webb always maintained artistic (audio problems) and there are just some things he is not ready to talk about. He may never be able to talk about or want to. Linda will be a difficult one.
    SUZY HUBBELL: Why?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: She will add, ''well I knew he could never do it.'' Maybe I am misjudging.
    SUZY HUBBELL: I will say well he has done it. He has written over 1200 pages but he is going to maintain control like he always said he would. And number two, on the advice of lawyers both here and in Texas he can't do it right now. Anybody can see that. I have here a registered letter from the IRS so I have to go get it tomorrow.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Which means you have to send it to Charlie as soon as possible.
    SUZY HUBBELL: I will.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: OK. We still have all that to deal with. (problem with tape) Some guy here who has been very nice to me and he was scheduled to go to the halfway house in a month and he has been in prison for five years. And he is the guy in charge of the salad bar. And some guy came up and said ''that pasta looks like crap.'' The other guy takes great pride in his work and he said ''well most people like it.'' Well, the other guy said ''you must have use three day old spaghetti.'' The guy said ''no we made it fresh this morning. I cut up the vegetables this morning. And if you feel that way keep your hands out of it.'' Now he is in the hole.
 Page 157       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    SUZY HUBBELL: That's depressing.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: The other news I got today was that Charlie Bus died. It was in USA Today in fact Friday.
    SUZY HUBBELL: What happened.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: I don't know honey. It was just a little blurb. And I would've wanted to be there obviously.
    SUZY HUBBELL: Well listen honey. Don't get down.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: I won't. It is just Charlie was a good friend. I forgot my pen again I was going to get Rebecca's address.
    SUZY HUBBELL: Well, why don't you call me after this.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: OK, I love you.
    SUZY HUBBELL: I love you too. Bye.

Telephone call placed by Webster Hubbell from the Federal Correctional Institution, 14601 Burbridge Road SE., Cumberland, Maryland 21501, to John Phillips
Tape 170A; Date: 10/10/96; Time: 20:53; Duration 14:29

    KATIE PHILLIPS: (Phillips' daughter) Hello?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Hey Katie.
    KATIE PHILLIPS: Hi.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: How are you doing?
    KATIE PHILLIPS: Good. How are you?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Is your mom or dad home?
    KATIE PHILLIPS: Yeah, hold on a minute. Webb, OK, hold on a minute. Dad? Dad? Webb's on line two.
 Page 158       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Hello?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: John.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Webb.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: How are you?
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Good.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: How are you—back from Prague?
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Oh yeah.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: When did you get back?
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Yeah. I got back last Sunday.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: I didn't know if this was a good time or if y'all had company.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: No, Wendy's traveling in Las Vegas——
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah.
    JOHN PHILLIPS [continuing]: And Katie is here with a friend——
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Oh, OK, OK.
    JOHN PHILLIPS [continuing]: Have school tomorrow. So it's a fine time.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Good. And hey did you have a good trip?
    JOHN PHILLIPS: I had a great trip——
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Good.
    JOHN PHILLIPS [continuing]: Prague has really changed in the last 27 years.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: I bet.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: I mean, it's the same city, when I was there last it was a year after the Russians had quelled the uprising——
 Page 159       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah.
    JOHN PHILLIPS [continuing]: The place was really black from all the coal——
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah.
    JOHN PHILLIPS [continuing]: Soot and everything and very tense and the troops were around everywhere. It was very vibrant and——
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah.
    JOHN PHILLIPS [continuing]: Cleaned up and active and capitalism has worked wonders in that place——
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah.
    JOHN PHILLIPS [continuing]: So we had a good time, and we actually got a little work done too. A sort of combination——
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Good.
    JOHN PHILLIPS [continuing]: Of business, uh, and very cheap compared to other European cities.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah, yeah, I was wondering if eastern European countries had gotten expensive or not.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: No, I mean, I had, you know, I had free airline tickets because of all my flier, frequent flier miles——
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah.
    JOHN PHILLIPS [continuing]: And we had discounts on the hotels——
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah.
    JOHN PHILLIPS [continuing]: Which, uh, actually stayed in the Presidential suite——
 Page 160       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Laughs.
    JOHN PHILLIPS [continuing]: Of this new hotel. It was like their view of what western luxury is all about——
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Laughs.
    JOHN PHILLIPS [continuing]: It was like a hundred bucks a day though.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Oh that's not bad.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: No, for like four rooms——
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Wow.
    JOHN PHILLIPS [continuing]: And a big huge bathroom with a tanning salon and a sauna. [Both laugh.]
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Great. Great.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: So how are you doing?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: I'm doing fine, you know, we're getting there——
    JOHN PHILLIPS: You sure are, boy.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL [continuing]: I'm about six weeks away——
    JOHN PHILLIPS: You're a short timer here.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL [continuing]: Well, you know, I don't, you know, I—it's you always worry about the next few, but uh, so far it's looking good——
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Mmm hmm.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL [continuing]: And, ah you know, uh, you know, everything else looks pretty good too, you know we're getting there——
 Page 161       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Yeah.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL [continuing]: I wanted to, uh, sometime when you get your sea legs back, talk. I want to send you some stuff. Uh, the guy who worked with Don Meese who is in on sentencing issues, you know, on my sentence you know, helping me understand the sentencing guidelines and stuff——
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Uh huh.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL [continuing]: Ah, he is, he is, suggested that if I wanted to for a short time go to work for him——
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Oh, that's good.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL [continuing]: Uh, which may have real possibilities. One, he knows the system, you know, and he can help me with halfway house issues.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Uh huh.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: And the other thing is it clearly has no connection with anybody promising me anything——
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Uh huh.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL [continuing]: You know——
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Yeah.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL [continuing]: Which, you know, the Wall Street Journal I, I'm sure is.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: The Riady stuff, huh?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: You know, you know John, it's kind of, you know, I'd love to almost have all the money I'm supposed to have——
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Yeah.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL [continuing]: Or just give me half of it, but also, I'm expecting next, there to be somebody see me at the ''grassy knoll.'' Yeah.
 Page 162       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Yeah, where were you on November 27?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Where was I? I happen to know I was playing football against El Dorado. I was a senior in high school. But, I'm sure there's something that links me to the ''grassy knoll'' at this point. But uh, yeah, they're big on to that now.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Yeah.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: But uh, so.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Well that, so, is he here in town?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Uh yeah, they are in Arlington——
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Uh huh.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL [continuing]: Ah, but they are sending me some stuff, and I thought I might send it along to you after I looked at 'em to just to kinda get your reaction to it——
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Hmm.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL [continuing]: Because they are semi, you know, kinda public entity that works on criminal justice issues and things like that. And uh, he's saying, you know, I could be a research assistant. You know.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Well, that's good, I mean, the concern is what's the first the first——
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah.
    JOHN PHILLIPS [continuing]: Attention you get and what's——
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah, where did it come from and stuff like that——
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Sure.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL [continuing]: So it's got some real possibilities. Like I said the good part is that he knows the rules concerning halfway houses, the rules concerning probation and kinda help me through the maze of that——
 Page 163       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Mmm hmm.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL [continuing]: Ah, it has a, and I really do, we talked about it. I do have an interest in trying to help others, you know, who are going through this, what I've gone through——
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Sure.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL [continuing]: Which is natural after going through what I went through——
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Mmm hmm.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL [continuing]: Ah, and he also is offering kind of a flexibility. You know, that ''Webb, essentially is a place where you can go everyday and start looking for other things as well as work for him——
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Mmm hmm.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL [continuing]: Which is, you know, you know. I thought it is, you know, at least something on the table.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Yeah, well no, hey. If that works, fine.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: I wanted you to think about it. You know, to get your kind of reaction——
    JOHN PHILLIPS: OK.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL [continuing]: And I will send you the stuff on who they are and stuff——
    JOHN PHILLIPS: OK. Yeah. So you uh, it's now, October 11 is tomorrow.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah, like I said, it's about six weeks away.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Yeah, good luck on that.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Well, I hope it does, ha ha.
 Page 164       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    JOHN PHILLIPS: How are things up there?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: They're fine. They're fine. It's cold, it's getting real cold up here——
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Yeah, yeah. It's cold. It's chilly today I walked home it was.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: And so I'm wading through Ulysses——
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Oh yeah.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL [continuing]: And trying to just, you know, get everything done——
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Yeah.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL [continuing]: You know. It's a really funny feeling is that you feel like you're running out of time up here. Get all the stuff you need to get done.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Yeah, get all those books read you've gotten in the locker.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah, that's right. That's right. That's right. Well, y'all doing well?
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Yeah, pretty well, this winter's been real busy——
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah.
    JOHN PHILLIPS [continuing]: Three and half, four weeks to go——
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
    JOHN PHILLIPS [continuing]: Until the election's over and looking pretty good——
 Page 165       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah, yeah.
    JOHN PHILLIPS [continuing]: I guess you don't get a chance to watch the debates?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: No, I listen to them on the radio.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Oh you do?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah. And uh, you know, I felt, for me, the biggest worry was some big shoe you know or some big jab by, you know, one of them that obviously didn't occur.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: No, both have done well and the polls are holding pretty firm, even widening a little bit.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah, yeah. I think the biggest danger now is a little bit of apathy. You know.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Yeah, but um, I think if it comes in the last two weeks ten days it's like overwhelming, there's no chance and is really a surge for more. The Dole people are the ones discouraged. They're the ones who don't turn out.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: But you just could give really an overwhelming mandate I mean. That's a possibility too.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: That would be good. That would be good.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: How's Suzy doing? I haven't seen or heard anything.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: She's doing fine. She actually left today to go visit her aunt in Denver. Who is in, I think like 95. Having her 95th birthday——
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Ooh boy.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL [continuing]: And this is the aunt who kind of raised her when when her father was in Korea. And so it was a good break for her taking around Columbus day and she had we, I still had some frequent flier miles and I certainly have no use for them——
 Page 166       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Mmm hmm.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL [continuing]: So, so ah she had to use them up and it was a good thing for her and Kelly to do——
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Oh.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL [continuing]: And she'll be back I think she's going to be at the Stern's farm on Monday.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Oh, that's right that's coming up Monday.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: So. So uh.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: I missed it last year, so.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah. Yeah.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Well, things are fine here. And uh, it's uh, I'm still getting over my jet lag a little bit.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah, yeah, I'll bet you are.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Well—you try to stay up late and get up late. Try to stay on the same time or close to the same time——
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Oh, OK.
    JOHN PHILLIPS [continuing]: We went to Paris for a day on the way back, stopped there——
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Wow.
    JOHN PHILLIPS [continuing]: And uh, that's great had a good time——
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Good good. Well, I, it'd been awhile since we talked and wanted to just give you a call and see how you were doing and every thing——
    JOHN PHILLIPS [continuing]: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Um, I was gonna ask you, you read all the Wall Street Journal pieces.
 Page 167       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    WEBSTER HUBBELL [continuing]: Yeah, yeah on Riadys, you know, and Safire's too.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Oh, I didn't see.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Safire, yeah Safire.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: He's so good at that.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Safire's got a pay (inaudible). He's got me making a quarter of a million dollars from 'em which was real interesting. I don't know where he got that, but uh.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Was that today's paper?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: No, it was kinda over the weekend. I'm sure this is coming from you know, the uh, you know, the uh, you know, you know the Republicans. Because it was in Safire and then it hit the WSJ, and now they're doing it everywhere.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Did it say a quarter of a million dollars?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah, well, what Safire says is that his sources believe that's what I got.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Oh, God. Jeeze.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: You know.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Well, that's the Journal for you. It's been in the Journal editorial page?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Ah, yeah, it was in today's editorial page, that ah, you know, ''Who is Mochtar Riady II,'' you know?
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Oh, one of those. The stories that say any other quote a quarter of a million dollars?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: It quotes Safire saying it.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Well.
 Page 168       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: You know, you know. Like I said. Between that and the money that's been airlifted from the Mena airport and everything else, the next thing you know I'll be on the ''grassy knoll.''
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Well, um I'm sure, have your thoughts started thinking toward about getting out? What you're gonna do?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Ah, well, one of the things I talked a little, this guy's name is Herb Hoelter, I've talked to Herb a little bit about it. And he said, ''You've really got to meet with your kind of probation person to kinda get a feel for what you can and can't do.'' And I'm thinking, John, but I'm, but it's really hard to, you know, uh, you know, I'm and you know. Suzy and I have been, really she's only been up once, and then she was with somebody. So I, we really haven't had a chance to talk. You know. And I've just got to start getting the feelers out. You know and I don't know what's realistic yet. You know whether teaching is an option, whether going to work for a company is an option, you know.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Well what you've got to do is get back here, and get socially, meet people and look for possibilities.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: You almost have to see what's, you know, get somewhere, you know, where you have, you know, an office and a chance to meet with people, you know, and see, uh, what's what's viable and what's not you know.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Yeah. How about that lawyer from the Whitewater Committee? Did you see, read about his speech the other day for Dole?
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: No, oh, Chertoff——
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Yeah.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL [continuing]: Well, I heard that he's gone on Chertoff. I mean Dole's staff.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Yeah, well he's been, everybody's really criticizing him loudly for becoming a partisan, you know, campaigner after serving as counsel to the Whitewater staff. You know, he's really out of control. Well, he's hurting. Everything Dole's doing is backfiring.
 Page 169       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah, I mean, like the Bozo comment. I think that just hurts Dole.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Of course it does. Of course it does. And they can't go after Clinton anymore it'll just hurt them more, and they know that based on the poll. And everybody says well, you've got to do that. You've got to go after his character.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: It's gonna be salvation. They're gonna see things that haven't——
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Yeah.
    JOHN PHILLIPS [continuing]: It'll be coming up soon, three weeks, three and a half weeks. I hope he gets the House and Senate back. Well, at least the House.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Well, that would be great, just to get one house.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Yeah, it really would just to get one house. I look forward to that.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Well, I will keep in touch.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: OK.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: I just wanted to welcome you back.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: Oh hey, good, thanks for the call. And we'll be talking to you.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: Great and give Linda my love too.
    JOHN PHILLIPS: OK.
    WEBSTER HUBBELL: OK, bye.
    INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 937 TO 1007 AND 337 TO 679 HERE
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]
 Page 170       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Ms. RENO. May I now respond?
    Mr. BURTON. Oh, yes, you can respond, of course.
    Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.
    Ms. RENO. It is very important that you don't see a big amorphous blob and pull everybody into it, saying that they are all a part of the investigation. You have to look at the specific and credible information that exists with respect to them. And if there was no specific and credible information against Mr. Shadegg, just because he served on the same committee with you—that he did something wrong—doesn't mean that he should be wrapped into an investigation that caused that.
    It is very important that you look both at the big picture, and if you get specific and credible information concerning the big picture, you trigger it. But if you don't have it, you have got to look at the pieces; and that is where people can disagree, but that is where something is very important to me.
    One of the things I hope is that I don't lose your friendship for it, because all I have tried to do was what was the right thing to do, and if people go around losing friendship because somebody has tried to do the right thing, that is not entirely right; and I have a great respect for you.
    Now, what we are trying to do is look at the facts and circumstances. I have triggered the independent counsel statute before on a discretionary issue, and I am not afraid to do it again when I look at the facts and figures and look at the person that I have specific and credible information about and say, does this person create a conflict for the Justice Department? And when they do, and I think it should be triggered, I am going to trigger it.
    Mr. BURTON. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner, excuse me.
 Page 171       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Madam Attorney General, I appreciate your testimony here today, and I suppose I take a little different tack from what some have said about—I think the remark was made that you bumped into the trees, and I think earlier it was said that you are not—your job is not to cross the T's and dot the I's.
    I would like to say that, from my vantage point, I think that probably is your job, and I think the American people would probably agree, we are better off for it. You are the chief, or supposedly—you and Mr. Freeh may share the title—chief law enforcement officer of this country. You, over the FBI, are one of the most feared agencies in Government. Anyone who has ever been subject to investigation by the FBI or the IRS understands the power that the Federal Government can bring against an individual; and whether it is the President or an individual that I may represent, a hard-working citizen in the Second District of Texas, I think it is important that all of us agree with you that your job is to dot the I's and cross the T's to be sure that the power of prosecution of the Federal Government is never brought in an arbitrary way and that the law is clearly followed.
    You know, we have a campaign finance system today that I guess started out well-intended when we passed a law that said you can only contribute $1,000 to a congressional candidate as an individual, or if you are a political action committee can give $5,000. It seems that smart lawyers for both the Democrats and Republicans discovered somewhere along the way that you didn't have to abide by those limits, that you could ask for money, tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time and pour them into political parties or nonprofit groups and run so-called issue advocacy ads, which are no more than campaign ads in the mind of an average sixth grader, and you could get by abusing a system that was created to place some limits on what people can put into the political process.
    Now, you have a unique view of that system, because your office has investigated, I am sure, literally hundreds of cases of abuse of that system. And I suppose that without asking you to specifically give us recommendations on what we ought to do to change that system, at least I think maybe the American people would like to hear from you as to what your general view is of the system that we now have and as it has evolved to elect officials to the highest offices in the Federal Government.
 Page 172       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. I think that what is necessary is to clarify what can and can't be done; and I think that with the work that has been done on it—McCain-Feingold comes very far toward achieving that. Again, I think the most important thing that people could do would be to sit down and in good faith and discuss it, and if people disagree, then disagree in a thoughtful way.
    There are Republicans and Democrats, but this issue is how you make the funding of democracy work, and there is no issue more important, no issue more vital to this Nation, than how you fund democracy. And that is what it is all about.
    So my recommendation is, sit down and let's talk about it.
    Mr. TURNER. How much time and energy does investigating abuses of the current campaign finance system consume you and your staff?
    Ms. RENO. Lots.
    Mr. TURNER. How many investigations have been launched since the last campaign by your office of various allegations?
    Ms. RENO. I mean, as part of the whole campaign finance investigation, there are a lot of pieces of that investigation under way, as I have indicated in response to comments about what is happening. I can't talk to you about specific cases, but I can say we are pursuing these leads.
    Mr. TURNER. How many investigators and U.S. Attorneys——
    Ms. RENO. There are 120 lawyers and agents assigned.
    Mr. TURNER [continuing]. Are there across the country investigating congressional and Presidential allegations?
    There is one other issue that I want to address very briefly, just to give you the opportunity to address it if you choose today. Following your testimony and Mr. Freeh's testimony, I understand that Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz has been called to testify before our committee, and apparently he has told the press that the Justice Department decided not to prosecute Secretary Espy's former Chief of Staff, Ron Blackley, and suggested that the Justice Department obstructed his investigation without a basis for doing so.
 Page 173       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Inasmuch as that apparently will be his testimony and there have been reports to that effect, I thought it might be appropriate, while you are here, to give you an opportunity to explain to us what the Justice Department's position was with respect to Mr. Smaltz?
    Ms. RENO. I appreciate that very much. I am limited in what I can say both because the independent counsel matters remain in large part under seal and because the Blackley case is still pending in court. I can assure you, and I will assure Mr. Smaltz, having just heard in these last days about his concern, that there was never any effort to obstruct his investigation, and I regret that he even has concerns that there were.
    In 1994, the Department received a referral from the Department of Agriculture Inspector General concerning Mr. Blackley. The Department investigated this single matter and closed it as without prosecutive merit.
    Mr. Smaltz was originally given jurisdiction to investigate whether Secretary Espy had received illegal bribes or gratuities. In 1995, Mr. Smaltz went directly to the court that appoints independent counsels and asked to have his jurisdiction expanded to investigate and prosecute a wide range of individuals who might have dealt with Blackley or Espy. We opposed the application in court.
    Although large portions of these papers remain under seal, I can tell you some of our reasons. First, Mr. Smaltz did not claim that the particular persons who were the basis of his application had anything to do with the gratuities that were the basis of Mr. Smaltz's original jurisdiction. We did not believe that the new matters were related to his jurisdiction. Instead, as we have done with many other independent counsels, we believed that it was appropriate for the Department to investigate and prosecute these matters, and if evidence against Secretary Espy developed, turn that evidence over to Mr. Smaltz, remembering now that Mr. Espy was the covered person and the reason the statute had been triggered.
 Page 174       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    As I have said, the Department has had this sort of cooperative relationship with numerous other independent counsels, I am told, on different occasions.
    Second, we believe that it was not lawful for the court to give Mr. Smaltz jurisdiction over the Department of Justice. You must remember that, under the Constitution, the executive branch has the power and the responsibility to enforce the laws. The Supreme Court upheld the Independent Counsel Act in part, and this is important because the Attorney General retains substantial control over the decision to seek an independent counsel and the independent counsel's jurisdiction. We have an obligation to make sure that that statute's constitutionality is maintained.
    We did not think that the court could expand its jurisdiction on its own or that an independent counsel has jurisdiction to investigate anything he happens to come across, because that would present serious separation of powers issues. We believed and still believe that Mr. Smaltz's request to the court presented important issues, and accordingly, we litigated it in a responsible and professional manner, and we had no intention whatsoever of attempting to obstruct. If we had done otherwise, we would have investigated it, shared it with him, seen where it went to.
    His subsequent prosecution of Mr. Blackley, I am told, was on different charges than those which the Inspector General had referred to us and on which we had declined prosecution.
    In addition, Mr. Smaltz has raised something that is very disturbing to me, and that is anonymous Department of Justice officials that are critical of Mr. Smaltz, and they cite some examples. He had previously sent me a letter concerning a leak of some information, and we referred that to our Office of Professional Responsibility. They are also reviewing this, and I expect that they will pursue it and have made clear that this is what should be done.
    But if Mr. Smaltz thinks that we intended to do that, I just regret that impression. It is certainly not an accurate impression based on what we were trying to do.
 Page 175       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mrs. Morella.
    Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Madam Attorney General, for spending the day with us. I must admit that I am disturbed that an independent counsel hasn't been appointed to investigate alleged abuses by the Clinton-Gore re-election effort and most recently the fund-raising phone calls made by the President and the Vice President.
    I really think the American people, who have become so cynical of Government because of campaign abuses, deserve an inquiry untainted by the suspicion that the Justice Department is protecting the executive branch. And while our committee is charged with the responsibilities of investigating all campaign illegalities and improprieties, I also want to point out that Congress has the power to clarify existing laws to ensure that such abuses, abuses that should so clearly be illegal, will not happen again.
    I remember in your opening testimony you said that the Vice Presidential calls were for soft money, but some later did become hard money. And I'm struck by the confusion over the meaning and the force of the Federal Election Campaign Act, and I am really rather amazed over the disagreement over what activities the FECA prohibits and what FECA does not cover. So I have a few questions I would like to pose that I hope will shed light on how we in Congress can clarify and change existing campaign finance laws. Some may be a little bit repetitive. I think some of my colleagues may have touched on some of them.
    But first, so I am clear on the Justice Department's position, I would like to just ask you a few questions, Madam Attorney General. It is my understanding that under the Pendleton Act campaign contributions, as defined by the Federal Election Act, may not be solicited in Federal buildings; is that correct?
    Ms. RENO. That's correct.
 Page 176       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mrs. MORELLA. Under 2 U.S. Code section 441(e), contributions may not be made by foreign nationals in connection with an election to any political office, right?
    Ms. RENO. I'm not sure of the number, but it's in here.
    Mrs. MORELLA. OK, great.
    Under 2 U.S. Code section 441(b), contributions may not be made by business corporations and labor unions, right?
    Ms. RENO. Right.
    Mrs. MORELLA. Good.
    And under 2 U.S. Code section 434, contributions are to be fully disclosed, right?
    Ms. RENO. [Nodding in the affirmative.]
    Mrs. MORELLA. These laws should be clear, but legal definitions are not always what they seem, as is the case when soft money comes into play. And as I understand it, each of these laws has been weakened by the soft money loophole.
    The Federal Election Campaign Act defines a contribution as a donation of money or anything of value for the purpose of influencing a Federal election. ''Contribution'' is, therefore, a legal term with the definition that is much more narrow, specific and technical than the usual meaning of the word. The FECA definition of contribution, therefore, excludes soft money.
    Because the soft money loophole has undermined all of the laws, would it be helpful to the Justice Department in this case or in future cases if Congress enacted campaign finance reforms to clarify the law and ensure that no political contributions, hard money, soft money, any money, may be raised with Government resources or can be solicited from foreign sources or corporations? What do you think?
 Page 177       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. You have to—you get into some interesting areas, and I'd have to look at all the issues with respect to what you can and can't do. For example, Congress has said we can't solicit and we can't receive, but you can bring a contribution to our office if we get rid of it in 7 days or something like that. And so there are some logistics that you have to look at and consider.
    But, again, Congresswoman, I would just love, having been the recipient of yours and Mr. Shays and other, if people would just sit down and let's talk about it and figure out how the McCain-Feingold can be improved upon; what can be done about 607 to make sure people know exactly what they can and can't do.
    Mrs. MORELLA. That's kind of what I'm getting at, Madam Attorney General. For instance, in spite of the soft money loophole, is it the Department's legal position that the Pendleton Act does not cover soft money donations because the FECA does not cover soft money? Is that the Department's position?
    Ms. RENO. 607 specifically refers to the FECA, and so that's the connection.
    Mrs. MORELLA. OK. Is it the Department's position that the corporate and union contribution ban does not cover soft money donations because the FECA does not cover soft money? Is that the Department's position?
    Ms. RENO. That's correct.
    Mrs. MORELLA. OK. And I just wonder about what effect the soft money loophole had on foreign soft money donations, seeing as how the FECA does not cover soft money. Does the Department have a position on that?
    Ms. RENO. I think I need to clarify something for you on that. I think there is another provision that is affected there. I can't recall it off the top of my head, and I will clarify that for you.
 Page 178       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mrs. MORELLA. Good.
    So what I'm getting at is that——
    Mr. BURTON. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Mrs. MORELLA [continuing]. We need to come up with some definitions, and Congress has a role in it, too.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. RENO. Mr. Chairman, may I ask what your plans are, so I can either tell the Italian Minister of Justice and Minister of Interior that——
    Mr. BURTON. Ms. Reno, I apologize for the length of the hearing, but we have a number of Members who still have questions. I think we ought to be through probably in another half hour, if that's possible. If not, maybe we can ask you to return. I'd rather not do that.
    Ms. RENO. OK, we've moved it up to 3:45. Could I be sure that I make 3:45?
    Mr. BURTON. Oh, sure. If you're not, I'll go speak for you.
    Ms. RENO. OK.
    Mr. BURTON. Mr. Allen.
    Mr. ALLEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And Ms. Reno, I very much appreciate your being here today.
    I want to contrast what I have heard from you throughout this hearing. The words ''specific and credible evidence'' have passed your lips on a number of occasions today, and I am glad that the highest lawyer in this land is sticking to the law as it was enacted, as this Congress passed it.
    I want to contrast the emphasis that you have shown in focusing on specific and credible evidence with a couple of phrases. The chairman earlier referred to this whole mess, and Representative Shays referred to the big corrupt picture. It seems to me that it is critically important that our country's top lawyer follow law, focus on what the law says specifically.
 Page 179       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I want to followup on some things that Congresswoman Morella was saying, in particular about soft money. It strikes me from your testimony that the question of telephone calls, specifically telephone calls where the objective was to raise soft money, is a problem not just for the Pendleton Act, but a problem for our campaign system.
    And I appreciate your suggestion that it's time to reform the Pendleton Act so that the legal issues are clearer, but am I correct in believing that if there were no soft money, that—if soft money were banned, if it were illegal, if it were off the table, many of the phone calls that you have been asked to investigate simply would not have occurred because it wouldn't be—neither the President nor the Vice President would be out there asking for that particular type of funding?
    Ms. RENO. Just judging by the comments made to me informally over these last weeks as we have investigated this, I think this question would still be asked by many people of what they can and can't do under the Pendleton Act, but generally, you're correct.
    Mr. ALLEN. I would just note for the record that we all ought to, on this committee, be judged by our willingness to legislate and not just to investigate. There are 8 Members on the Republican side who have signed on to one bill or another that would reduce or eliminate soft money, but there are 18 Democrats who have signed on to a similar legislation. So I would just say it is clear that on this side of the aisle, there is a determination to do something about soft money and in most cases get rid of it and not simply eliminate it.
    I want to refer now, you raised some questions earlier in your testimony about the budget for independent counsels, and if I could have the screen now show a comparison which I have asked to be produced.
    For the year from March 1996 to March 1997, independent counsels have cost $21 million, and they have returned 13 indictments. Just by comparison, during that same period of time, or during the time of the fiscal year 1997, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts has filed 1,050 cases at a cost of $17 million.
 Page 180       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Are you concerned with the costs that independent counsels are running up in the course of doing their work, and do you have any suggestions for how we should deal with that?
    Ms. RENO. What I have specifically said is that I'm not going to comment on any specific independent counsel because to do so would be to have some impact on their independence, and I have tried very carefully not to comment at all. And recognize, too, that these are major investigations of critical importance to the Nation, and they should be adequately funded.
    All I'm saying when I talk about budgets is, as a more general concept, I don't care whether they spend a little bit or a lot, each person who does the spending should be accountable for their spending and have to budget and do what I do each year and come up with a budget.
    Mr. ALLEN. Good. Thank you very much.
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
    Mr. Mica of Florida.
    Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Reno, in your testimony you said sometime after the 1994 elections the DNC began to split some large checks into soft and hard money accounts without the donor's prior knowledge or consent, including several of the donations solicited by the Vice President. Investigators uncovered no evidence that the Vice President was aware of the DNC's practice or in any way knew that donations he solicited would make their way into hard money accounts. Is the same the case with the President?
    Ms. RENO. My recollection is that there is one, one check, that may have gone—it was made out to a non-Federal account and non, may have been cost out. I'm not sure whether it went into a Federal account or a non-Federal account, but it was made at the residence. The solicitation was made at the residence.
 Page 181       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. MICA. Now, let me ask you this: If you found information to the contrary, would you appoint an independent counsel?
    Ms. RENO. What I have said previously today, sir, is that the Independent Counsel Act specifically provides that if an investigation is closed because no further investigation is necessary, and new evidence is developed, it will trigger the preliminary investigation, and I would apply the standards that I have in this to determine whether we could proceed.
    Mr. MICA. If I may, let me run you through a quick scenario. November 1995. November 2nd. The Vice President meets with Pauline Kanchanalak, with Charlie Trie, with I think it's Wiriadinata, the Indonesian gardener, and John Huang. This is on the 11th—I'm sorry, 11/2, which is November 2nd.
    Have you talked to or any of your investigators talked to or had access to Charlie Trie, to Wiriadinata, whatever his name is, the gardener, or Pauline Kanchanalak?
    Ms. RENO. I cannot discuss what we're doing in the continuing investigation except to say what I have already said, that we're pursuing every lead.
    Mr. MICA. Well, let me go from that, if I may, to this is in November. Please put up on the screen what the President said on December 7th, a few weeks later.
    [The information referred to follows:]
    INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 680 HERE
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]

    Mr. MICA [Quoting.]

    Then we realized we could run these ads through the Democratic Party, which meant we could raise money in tens, twenties, and hundred thousand dollar blocks and we didn't have to do it all in the thousand dollars and run down what I can spend, which is prohibited by law. So that's what we have done.
 Page 182       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    That's after that meeting. Then we have on December 12th, put up the gardener. How do you pronounce that, Wiriadinata, and he is on tape with the President saying, this is a few days later, saying James Riady sent me. This is also the man that gave $100,000 to Webb Hubbell, your former No. 3 individual in the Department.
    Then let's move along to Pauline Kanchanalak, Pauline Kanchanalak and the money that was funneled into State campaigns. Pauline Kanchanalak met with the President in the residence. I have the visitor log here, and this one is June 18, 1996. June 18, 1996, Pauline Kanchanalak meets with the President, and I have a list of the money that went to States from Pauline Kanchanalak and her sister-in-law, Duangnet Kronenberg. Florida got $60,000 a few days later; California, $54,000 ended up there; Illinois, $55,000; Pennsylvania, $50,000; Ohio, $43,000.
    Then we have heard this talk about the support of the Feingold intent. I want to bring up what has happened in Kansas. Six years ago the State of Kansas passed a law designed to limit soft money coming into the State. The statute, a mini McCain-Feingold bill, clearly limits the amount of soft money that can be contributed by the Democratic National Committee or the Republican National Committee to $25,000. It also limits the amount of soft money that can come from other State political parties to $15,000.
    Where are the charts? Faced with this limit, my investigation has uncovered evidence that the DNC actively trampled on the laws of both Kansas and the United States. And you can see—and would you provide the Attorney General, put it on the screen, the list of these conduit payments.
    Ms. RENO. I've got this. Is this the list you are talking about?
    Mr. MICA. Yes. To subvert a mini soft money State law. Very, very conspiratorial, in my opinion.
 Page 183       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [The information referred to follows:]
    INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 681 TO 682 HERE
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]

    Mr. BURTON. If the gentleman can start to finish, his time has expired.
    Mr. MICA. And you start putting these points together—and I would like additional time to finish this, if I may.
    Mr. BURTON. We are under the 5-minute rule and the minority is about to object. I can hear them breathing on my shoulder. So if you could summarize quickly.
    Mr. LANTOS. It is heavy breathing, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. BURTON. Heavy breathing, yes.
    Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Chairman, I would yield him 1 minute of my time and then I would have 4 minutes to conclude, if that would be all right.
    Mr. BURTON. Do you object to him yielding 1 minute of his time?
    Mr. LANTOS. We should yield 5 minutes by 5 minutes.
    Mr. BURTON. I will allow you to yield him 1 minute on the next round, if it is OK with you, Mr. Davis. Is that all right, Mr. Mica?
    Mr. MICA. OK.
    Mr. BURTON. Mr. Lantos.
    Mr. LANTOS. In deference to our Attorney General, who has been here much longer than her self-established deadline, I was going to yield back my time. But in view of this litany of Democratic crimes, which seem to have no point to them except to one more time repeat all the Democratic crimes, I want to take my 5 minutes to talk about some recent Republican shenanigans.
 Page 184       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The tobacco industry contributed $8.8 million to the Republican party since the Republican takeover of Congress in 1995. In fact, the top three corporate contributors over that time period were all tobacco companies: Philip Morris, RJR Nabisco, and Brown and Williamson. Following these contributions, and at the urging of former Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour, who as I understand it now is a tobacco industry lobbyist, the Republican leadership included a $50 billion tax credit to the tobacco industry in this year's initial budget deal.
    Since 1994, Amway Corp. has contributed $2,866,000 to the Republicans, including the single largest ever contribution to the Republican National Committee, $1.7 million. In addition, Amway founder Richard DeVoss and his family contributed $1,163,000 to Republican committees and candidates, including $1 million from Mr. DeVoss and his wife to the Republican National Committee in April of this year.
    I mean, the sheer hypocrisy of colleagues on the other side complaining about soft money contributions when in April 1997 one individual contributes $1 million to the Republican National Committee. The Republican leadership included a $280 million tax provision that would benefit Amway's stockholders in the budget deal.
    Now, this is not the only such activity. In April 1995, Fruit of the Loom contributed $100,000 to the Republican National Committee. Golden Rule Financial Corp. contributed $620,775 in soft money to Republican committees. Golden Rule also happened to be the top proponent and beneficiary of medical savings accounts as an alternative to the current Medicare system. Following these contributions, medical savings accounts were included in the Republican proposal to deal with our medical finance problems.
    PNN Cedar Projects, a major supplier of wood for pencils, developed a close relationship with the Republican leadership.
    The notion that these soft money contributions, which I oppose in all form, I think there should be a total ban on soft money contributions either by individuals, corporations, or any other entity, that these soft money contributions were the specialty of one political party is so patently absurd as to be almost nauseating. We have had an abuse, and the more successful abuse of current campaign finance laws by the other side by virtue of the fact that they have succeeded in raising more money. In this campaign cycle, our colleagues on the other side are way ahead, way ahead in raising money, hard money, soft money, mixed money, than is our side.
 Page 185       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Clearly, the notion of dealing with past transgressions to be remotely fair would have to be a bipartisan approach. It is palpably a nonbipartisan approach when we have 700 subpoenas issued by the chairman of this committee to Democrats and 10 or 11 to Republicans. The appalling lopsidedness becomes self-evident.
    What is clearly called for is what our distinguished Attorney General has called for, a serious attempt to reform campaign finance laws. Some favor full public financing; others favor the McCain-Feingold approach or some variant of it. But we have got to see to it that we restore the confidence of the American people in the electoral process, and these one-sided partisan political witch-hunts won't do anything to achieve that goal.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Mr. Davis.
    Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Be happy to yield 1 minute to Mr. Mica.
    Mr. MICA. Thank you.
    The fact is none of those folks met with the President or Vice President of the United States nor has fled the country and they are accessible to this committee.
    Ms. Reno, my question is, I cited three or four individuals pretty heavily involved in a conduit payment of incredible amounts of money who have personally met with the President and Vice President. You are not able to tell me whether that is being investigated. Is there any attempt or are you taking any action to bring these people back into the country?
    Ms. RENO. Again, we are trying to pursue every lead and we look forward to the chance to have some——
    Mr. MICA. Well, if you aren't, I think we have a responsibility. We just aren't any committee of Congress, we are an investigations and oversight committee. And I am prepared to proceed with contempt procedures against you, for contempt of Congress, if we don't find out. I would be glad to work——
 Page 186       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. What do you want to know, sir?
    Mr. MICA. I would like to work with you.
    Ms. RENO. Do you want to know all details of the investigation?
    Mr. MICA. Well, I would like to see a copy of the memo that was subpoenaed and has not been made available to this committee.
    Ms. RENO. Well, I just think it would be very, very wrong for Congress, in its oversight function, to become part of a prosecution and an investigation. It would politicize investigations; it would politicize the prosecution process.
    Mr. MICA. We have worked with——
    Ms. RENO. I think that's wrong.
    Mr. MICA. This committee has worked with top-secret information and numerous investigations in a cooperative manner and we are prepared to do that with you. If it means that that has to be done in executive session or on some limited basis, I think we would be willing to work with you.
    Ms. RENO. I think there is a very distinct difference between those other matters that you discuss and criminal investigations, and I think we should think long and hard before Congress becomes involved in criminal investigations and criminal prosecutions.
    I think we must do everything possible to keep politics out of it, to make sure that it is run by the executive in an appropriate way, and I will work with you in every way I can to honor your oversight function, and I would hope that you could work with me to honor my responsibility to conduct an investigation in a fair, impartial way without making it public.
    Mr. MICA. Thank you.
    Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. Let me just, Madam Attorney General, thank you for staying. I know it has been a very long day. I will try to be brief.
 Page 187       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I want to move, since we are hearing from Mr. Smaltz tomorrow, to just ask you to elaborate on some of the comments you made on what Mr. Turner asked you previously. As you know, the Smaltz investigation has secured 10 indictments of 18 individuals and companies in 5 different jurisdictions. This investigation has so far recovered more than $4.5 million in fines and penalties for the U.S. Treasury, and we will hear from Mr. Smaltz tomorrow on his perspective on dealing with the Justice Department, but I wanted to make sure the Attorney General had an opportunity today to, if she can, clarify the Justice Department's role.
    My understanding is that the Department of Justice declined originally to prosecute Mr. Blackley for his false statements on his financial disclosure forms. Is that correct?
    Ms. RENO. There was an initial, as I testified, an initial declination.
    Mr. DAVIS. And you declined to prosecute under those grounds?
    Ms. RENO. For a specific case. I will be happy to furnish you with the specific case in which the declination was provided.
    Mr. DAVIS. And then, when Mr. Smaltz came forward and wanted to expand his investigation to include some of these items, didn't you oppose the independent counsel's efforts to prosecute Mr. Blackley?
    In fact, his application for referral of the Blackley matter, there were two legal grounds under the independent counsel statute and you lost your argument on both counts; is that correct?
    Ms. RENO. Yes, I indicated that out of our responsibility for construing the statute as it has been construed both through Republican and Democratic administrations, and in connection with our responsibility to ensure its constitutionality, we made an argument that we thought was responsible and professional.
 Page 188       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    As I indicated, it was not done with any intent to obstruct Mr. Smaltz. And as I indicated in my previous testimony, we have on a number of occasions, both in this administration and otherwise, worked with independent counsel to make sure that we shared information as appropriate and that we cooperated with them in every way possible.
    As I indicated previously in my testimony, I regret if Mr. Smaltz feels that there was any intent to obstruct, because there clearly was not.
    Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Well, we will hear from him tomorrow and he will be able to further elaborate. I guess the concern is that the Justice Department didn't want to prosecute on their own when these items came forward.
    Ms. RENO. No, I think, sir, that there was additional information that was before Mr. Smaltz when he determined to prosecute.
    Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. But we don't know if you would have ever uncovered this information or not. I think that is one of the questions we will ask Mr. Smaltz tomorrow.
    Ms. RENO. Well, I don't think Mr. Smaltz could answer that. But I do think that if we had the opportunity to sit down with him and talk about it, we could understand just what his point was and pursue it.
    Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Well, we will get that—we will air it tomorrow, but I think the American people ought to know that Mr. Blackley was convicted of three counts of lying, to hide $22,000 he received in 1993 from Mississippi agribusinesses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001.
    Those three businesses sought and received in excess of $400,000 in USDA subsidies in the 1 year that Blackley served as Espy's Chief of Staff, and Blackley attempted to influence and reverse a USDA decision not to provide one of those businesses with the amount of subsidies it requested.
 Page 189       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And the key here, I think, is that this investigation has recovered more than $4.5 million in fines and penalties for the Treasury. We will be able to hear more about this tomorrow, but I just wanted to give you an opportunity on the record.
    Ms. RENO. I appreciate the opportunity, and you can tell Mr. Smaltz I never intended to obstruct it. We had a working relationship——
    Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent——
    Ms. RENO. If you'll let me finish, since you said you wanted to let me have a chance to get something on the record.
    Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I was going to ask unanimous consent to let you supplement it. That was—but go ahead and amplify.
    Ms. RENO. Well, if it requires unanimous consent, don't worry.
    Mr. BURTON. I have no objection. Is there any objection?
    Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I wasn't trying to cut you off. I wanted to give you an opportunity.
    Ms. RENO. I just think it is very important, as we proceed through these complicated matters, this administration prosecuted somebody that many people in this Congress said we would never do. We would never follow through. And they cried politics. And we prosecuted it, and we did what was right. We prosecute and reclaim for the American people millions and millions and millions of dollars. We send an awful lot of people to jail.
    I respect the independent counsel, and I have not commented in any way publicly with respect to the independent counsel, but I will tell you, when I have seen the Department of Justice prosecute and convict people in tremendously complex cases, such as Oklahoma bomb, in the World Trade Center, when I look at the recent methamphetamine investigation that came down, I will match you point by point with everyone.
 Page 190       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    But the basic issue is, did we try to obstruct him? No, we were just trying to do what we thought was our duty under the independent counsel statute, and we will continue to try to do that.
    Mr. BURTON. Mr. Fattah.
    Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me say to the Attorney General that a lot has been said since you have rendered your decision in this matter, and I have heard, unfortunately, calls for your impeachment or now we hear a threat of a contempt citation, but I do want to try to set the record straight.
    You were asked a series of questions about whether or not you had initiated preliminary investigations as related to a number of named people, Charlie Trie, John Huang, so forth and so on, and to each you said no. That does not mean that those people or matters associated with or allegations having to do with are not being looked into by the Justice Department; is that correct?
    Ms. RENO. Thank you so much for asking that question so I can answer it once again and say because a preliminary investigation has not been instituted does not mean we are not pursuing every lead we possibly can.
    Mr. FATTAH. In fact, you said, and you testified, and it is a fact that the Task Force that you have set up has more resources than any other ongoing effort of the Justice Department.
    Ms. RENO. That's as I understand it.
    Mr. FATTAH. Over 100 agents.
    Ms. RENO. 120 agents and lawyers.
    Mr. FATTAH. So the independent counsel route to a truth-searching exercise is only one route. The normal route is the Justice Department, with all of its expertise pursuing a matter, and you have done that through this joint Task Force in which the FBI and others are actively participating in?
 Page 191       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. That's correct.
    Mr. FATTAH. So that when my colleagues ask you these questions about whether or not certain people are being looked into, and they elicit the answer, which is a truthful answer, that, no, there is no independent counsel preliminary review, the American public should not believe that you are not doing everything that you are capable of doing in looking into this.
    And let me try to further help you clarify the record. You have made decisions in the past to appoint independent counsels; Kenneth Starr, to investigate the President and the First Lady as related to Whitewater; is that correct?
    Ms. RENO. Yes, sir.
    Mr. FATTAH. You appointed an independent counsel to investigate the activities of the late Commerce Secretary, Ron Brown.
    Ms. RENO. I sought the appointment.
    Mr. FATTAH. And also for Henry Cisneros, the Secretary of HUD.
    Ms. RENO. That's correct.
    Mr. FATTAH. So there have been many times in the past when Members on the other side of the aisle in the Congress have applauded your independence and your decisionmaking process because they approved of the final conclusion that you arrived at.
    Ms. RENO. That's correct, sir.
    Mr. FATTAH. And now, because they disagree with this point—you have used the same decisionmaking process; right?
    Ms. RENO. That's correct.
    Mr. FATTAH. You have looked at the facts, you have looked at the law, and you have provided a conclusion. And so I would just ask my colleagues, as they go about the business of applauding some decisions and criticizing others that they keep in mind that this same decisionmaking process has been applied, and that as there are other matters that you have indicated you might be looking into, there is also a Federal law that prevents you from discussing anything that may be before a grand jury or evidence that has been presented or been prepared to go before a grand jury. Isn't that also correct?
 Page 192       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. Rule (6)(e) prohibits me discussing grand jury testimony.
    Mr. FATTAH. So you couldn't answer half of the questions that have been put before you today if in fact they were legitimately part of the Task Force's effort to find out what the facts may be.
    Ms. RENO. I have tried to answer every question that I could that would not interfere with the appropriate conduct of a criminal investigation.
    Mr. FATTAH. And any of the lawyers who are members of this committee would more normally know that it would be against the law for you to, as a Government attorney, to disclose any information that was going on before a grand jury.
    Ms. RENO. Well, I think the chairman has recognized that by suggesting that, at least with (6)(e) material, that there is a limitation.
    Mr. FATTAH. And the last thing I want to say is that even though you are being criticized today you should feel free to know that things change around here. A few months ago they were criticizing the FBI Director. There were many leading Members of the Congress, Republican Members, who were criticizing his activities, and now they want to applaud his activities because for the moment they agree with seemingly his point of view on a particular matter.
    There is a certain ebb and flow here. If you are making decisions that they agree with, then they hold you up, and if you are not, then they tear you down. But I think the American public is well-served by your independence and by your willingness to stand behind your decisions.
    Ms. RENO. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, may I take 2 1/2 minutes?
    Mr. BURTON. Two-and-a-half minutes. We will stand in recess for 2 1/2 minutes.
 Page 193       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [Brief Recess.]
    Mr. BURTON. The committee will come to order. Mr. Pappas.
    Mr. PAPPAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Reno, thank you for being here and for staying as long as you have.
    Mr. BURTON. Would you be willing to yield to me for just 1 second?
    Mr. PAPPAS. Sure.
    Mr. BURTON. Real quickly, Ms. Reno. First of all, I want to correct the record.
    When Mr. Fisk was up for reappointment as the Independent Counsel, you recommended him for reappointment. A number of us were concerned about Mr. Fiske's reappointment. Information was sent to the three-judge panel and they chose to not appoint Mr. Fisk but to appoint Mr. Starr. You indicated you appointed Mr. Starr. I just wanted to correct the record.
    Ms. RENO. No, what I indicated, and what I meant to indicate, sir, was that I had appointed Mr. Fiske; that I sought Mr. Fiske's reappointment. But that when I triggered—what I said I was going to do was that if the Independent Counsel Act was passed, I would go to the court to seek the appointment of a court-appointed independent counsel, and that's what I——
    Mr. BURTON. I understand. But the impression was that it was you who appointed Mr. Starr.
    Ms. RENO. I couldn't appoint Mr. Starr.
    Mr. BURTON. I know. And let me just say one more thing real quickly, and that is when we asked for the memo, very clearly I stated to Mr. Freeh's counsel and Mr. Freeh, and to your counsel, that we didn't want any grand jury testimony. Anything that pertained to the investigation you could redact. We wanted to see the redacted copy so we had some idea of the reason for the change.
 Page 194       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. That's the reason, sir, I made the statement to the Member just in I think the last round that indicated that you would accept a redacted copy.
    Mr. BURTON. Mr. Pappas. Thank you.
    Mr. PAPPAS. Ms. Reno, I would like to refer to a letter dated November 4, 1997, that is signed by Lee Radek, R-A-D-E-K, Chief of Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division. This is to Bradley Raymond, who is the attorney representing James Hoffa. In the second paragraph there is a sentence which I will quote from.
    Quote: ''We have concluded that the officials of the Clinton/Gore 1996 Reelection Campaign, against whom allegations have been made, are not covered persons, covered persons being in quotes, within the meaning of the Independent Counsel Act.''
    This is in response to two letters from Mr. Raymond, I believe addressed to you or to your department, dated September 12th and October 6, 1997. I am wondering if you could provide us with an explanation of the analysis used to make this decision?
    Ms. RENO. Do you have the letter there?
    Mr. PAPPAS. Pardon me?
    Ms. RENO. Do you have the letter there?
    Mr. PAPPAS. Yes. Yes, I do.
    Ms. RENO. I don't have—I thought that I had—I may have to get back to you.
    Mr. PAPPAS. I would be glad to provide a copy of this to you if someone could give it to Ms. Reno.
    Ms. RENO. Thank you.
    Mr. PAPPAS. I have highlighted it there.
    Ms. RENO. OK. He states that they are not covered persons within the meaning of the Independent Counsel Act, and the relevant section would be 591(b)(6), I believe, which provides that the chairman and treasurer of the principal national campaign committee seeking the election or reelection of the President and any officer of that committee exercising authority at the national level during the incumbency of the President would be covered.
 Page 195       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I believe, as I recall, though I don't have the specific information with me, that the decision was that they were not any officer of that committee exercising authority at the national level.
    Mr. PAPPAS. Would you, since you sound somewhat unsure, would you check on that and get back to us for the record?
    Ms. RENO. Be glad to.
    Mr. PAPPAS. Thank you, and now I would like to now yield to Mr. Barr.
    [The information referred to follows:]
    INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 683 TO 686 HERE
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]

    Mr. BARR. Thank you.
    Madam Attorney General, just briefly, one statement being made earlier, and you have made it in other venues as well, that there is some big blob out there. First of all, prosecutors deal with large blobs all the time. They are usually conspiracies, and they bring meaning to them.
    I don't think that is really even, though, what we have here, and that is a large blob. We have very clear evidence, through the words of Dick Morris, clearly indicating a systematic effort by the President and Vice President to evade campaign limits. We have the President's own words, as you saw earlier today, not for the first time, in exhibit C–90, the President clearly indicating, not in some amorphous blob but clearly, an effort to evade campaign limits. You saw through exhibits presented by Mr. Shadegg the specific words of the Vice President, that it was his intent to raise money specifically for the Federal campaign. Even though that didn't make it into your memo, those are his words. You have the documents that I submitted earlier as well, exhibit 292, that clearly indicate in a memo to the Vice President in preparation for a meeting with the President that they were intending to raise money for their re-elect budgets.
 Page 196       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Yet in the face of all that and other evidence, we have seen in this committee previously, for example, even though one member of the White House staff, the First Lady's former chief of staff seeing memos that clearly indicated that you cannot take and receive campaign funds at the White House or on official property, she did so. And, apparently, it is not so-called aggravating circumstances, where that sort of person clearly knowing they are not supposed to because they have received at least two memos by very learned counsels to the President that it is illegal to do so, and then they do so. That apparently does not rise to the level of an aggravating circumstance as well.
    And that is what mystifies, Madam Attorney General, a lot of us up here; that this is not some amorphous blob——
    [Exhibit 292 follows:]
    INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 687 HERE
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]

    Mr. LANTOS. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. BARR. There are specific incidents, and I would again urgently solicit your looking at these not as amorphous blobs but as very discrete pieces of evidence indicating systemic abuse by this administration in the last election cycle.
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Ms. RENO. As I indicated previously on a number of occasions, we are pursuing each lead and leaving no stone unturned, pursuing each transaction. And when there is specific and credible information that a covered person has—may have violated the law, then we will trigger the independent counsel statute. But you're quite right, it is important that we pursue the specifics, and we are doing so.
    Mr. BURTON. Mr. Barrett.
 Page 197       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would yield 1 minute to Mr. Kucinich.
    Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Mr. Barrett.
    Members of Congress, we have the power to ask Attorney General Reno to be here today, and she has complied. She has been very thorough in her presentation, very detailed. I don't think anyone who has watched these proceedings would dispute that. And at the end of all this, at the end of hours and hours, it just didn't seem fair to have an esteemed colleague on the other side raise the issue of possible contempt of Congress proceedings.
    We saw Maggie Williams, the First Lady's former chief of staff, threatened with criminal prosecution in this same room, despite the fact that no illegality was uncovered.
    Now, the American people are watching these proceedings, and we should be very careful how we use our power here, and not to use that power for purposes of media excitement or for intimidation and implied threats to pursue legal action against witnesses. If we have credible and specific evidence to proceed with such an attack, and I do not believe such evidence exists in the matter before us, then do it. But to visit a threat on a witness does not reflect well on this committee or this process. Thank you.
    Mr. BARRETT. Thank you.
    Ms. Reno, I want to thank you also for being here today. I think you have been very patient. Obviously, you have been very, very professional, and I think you have been very direct in the answers to the questions that have been posed to you today.
    Because we are near the end of your testimony, and we are going to be hearing shortly from Mr. Freeh, I want to return for a short time to the letter that you and Mr. Freeh sent to this committee yesterday, my birthday, talking about your reasons for not wanting to give the memorandum to this committee.
    In the letter you state it is unprecedented for a congressional committee to demand internal decisionmaking memorandums generated during an ongoing criminal investigation. So you are saying that you are unaware of any precedent whatsoever for this?
 Page 198       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. So far as I know. And the way we have done this is we have consulted the lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel who have had continuing responsibility for this issue, and I don't know of any.
    Mr. BARRETT. And your position is that this could hamper your investigation if these materials were released at this time?
    Ms. RENO. It is the very strong feeling of the Justice Department, if we are required to release documents such as this, it is going to set a precedent that can have a very disastrous effect not just on this investigation, but on all investigations for the future.
    And we would just like to work with people to try to get the questions answered—I think we have framed today where the differences are. I think people understand why I have done things and why I haven't. You will be able to hear from Director Freeh—and see if we can't get through this honoring the oversight function of Congress and honoring my responsibility for conducting a professional and effective investigation.
    Mr. BARRETT. Ironically, I think that you have some support from maybe some unexpected quarters, at least in the arguments you made. On September 24th in this committee, the issue at that time was the release of depositions, with the Democrats, frankly, arguing for the release of depositions and the Republicans arguing against it.
    At that time Mr. Barr, from the other side, stated, and I will quote:

    There's an additional reason in addition to the ones cited by the gentleman from California, and that is that witnesses then can collude their testimony if these documents are released. Another is, as a former prosecutor, I am well aware that if these documents such as we are talking about here are released, particularly in the early stage, they can cause those witnesses to be intimidated so that their testimony may change, it may be shaded. So I think that there are very, very sound reasons from both a legal and from a historical standpoint of how this body, the House of Representatives, has treated these documents in the past, and I urge the defeat of this amendment.
 Page 199       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Davis echoed those comments when he said:

    But if you do it in the middle of the process, or at the beginning of the process when you have different witnesses that have made conflicting statements, it really undermines the whole investigatory role, where we have seen people stonewall, stymie and try to shut down this investigation, and some of the witnesses that have been deposed to date.

    So I think I understand, you understand, and I think many of the majority understand why you don't want to release this document. And I would like to now yield to my friend from Maryland, Mr. Cummings.
    Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Attorney General, again, I just want to thank you for being here, and I want to thank you—I just—as you were speaking, I was just thinking that most lawyers will tell you, whether they are on the defense or prosecution side, the thing they want most is fairness. It's fairness. They feel if they go to trial or go through a process, and even if they don't win, if they believe that they have been treated fairly, that is the critical question. And I want to thank you for all that you're doing.
    I sit here and wonder how you take all this, but I encourage you to stand up and stand strong and thank you, thank you, and thank you again.
    Mr. LANTOS. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. BARRETT. Yield back.
    Mr. LANTOS. Madam Attorney General, on behalf of the Democrats on this committee, on behalf of the American people, I want to thank you for yet another exemplary performance as an outstanding public figure.
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired.
 Page 200       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. Snowbarger.
    Mr. SNOWBARGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Madam Attorney General, thank you for being here today. I have two or three lines of questioning. We will see how much time we will have to pursue these.
    I wanted to followup on a question that the chairman asked right at the beginning. He asked if you were requested to do so by the President, would you appoint an independent counsel, or an independent prosecutor, and I think your response was it depends on the circumstances.
    Let me try to followup, then. If you were requested to do so by the President, would you appoint an independent counsel on the matters related to the phone calls made in the White House or on other Federal property?
    Ms. RENO. It would depend on what the President's feelings were about it.
    Mr. SNOWBARGER. Well, if he asked you to do so——
    Ms. RENO. What I would be doing is doing it under the—I would not be doing it under the independent counsel statute, I would be doing it under special counsel statute, and I'd have to look at what his reasons were.
    Mr. SNOWBARGER. OK. What about the foreign money situation that we have alluded to and that has been in the press?
    Ms. RENO. Again, it would be under the special counsel provisions, the administrative appointment, and I would have to look at it.
    Mr. SNOWBARGER. You have to look at the case or the statute?
    Ms. RENO. No, I'd have to look at the facts, why he wanted me to do it.
    Mr. SNOWBARGER. Are you looking at the facts related to the foreign contributions that we have talked about?
 Page 201       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. RENO. No, I'd have to understand why he wanted me to do it.
    Mr. SNOWBARGER. Well, if he wanted to have credible investigations in the minds of the American people, would that be sufficient reason?
    Ms. RENO. It would depend on the circumstances.
    Mr. SNOWBARGER. What about the President's involvement and the report of the result of soft money?
    Ms. RENO. I would just flat out tell you to do ''what if's'' for a prosecutor is not a professional thing to do, because you come up with so many different variations, and you cannot judge the future by the different variations that occur. So I don't think it is a useful pursuit. I'm happy to try to answer your questions.
    Mr. SNOWBARGER. So the fact that the President requested those would not make any difference whatsoever.
    Ms. RENO. No, I didn't say that, sir.
    Mr. SNOWBARGER. So, if you heard from him today, and he asked you that an independent counsel be appointed in all those cases, you would examine that at least and potentially appoint a special prosecutor.
    Ms. RENO. I would examine and understand his reasons.
    Mr. SNOWBARGER. OK, let's go a different route here.
    Your investigation now, particularly on the phone call situation, since we finally have, I guess, some ruling there, or a determination out of your office, has taken a considerable amount of time. I think you originally had 90 days and requested additional time after that. So it's gone through a fairly long process.
    I guess my concern that I have expressed to you is that we have gone through a fairly long process. Have we reached a conclusion now?
    Ms. RENO. About what, sir?
 Page 202       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SNOWBARGER. About the phone calls. I think that is the only thing you have ruled on so far.
    Ms. RENO. I have reached the conclusion that is set forth in the notification.
    Mr. SNOWBARGER. OK. So that matter has ended at this point?
    Ms. RENO. That matter has ended with respect to the President and the Vice President. There are matters that are—we are continuing to investigate.
    Mr. SNOWBARGER. One of the concerns that I have is that——
    Ms. RENO. If new information is developed with respect to the President and the Vice President, it will trigger the 90 days.
    Mr. SNOWBARGER. And who would be developing that information?
    Ms. RENO. That would be part of the whole Task Force investigation. FBI agents would be the investigators.
    Mr. SNOWBARGER. One of the concerns I have about all this and the amount of time that it is taking in the Justice Department, and again I want you to take the time that is required, I suppose, but in some ways it hampers the investigation of this committee.
    Certain types of evidence, access to witnesses, maybe through grants of immunity, things of that nature, are directly tied to investigations that you have ongoing. And it seems, it appears at times, that, while your efforts are really appreciated, they are also hampering the efforts of this committee. So I'm trying to figure out when in the process we can expect to have access to all that information, have access to all those witnesses.
    I guess my question is, do we have that? Are you saying that we will now have access to all that, at least on the phone call situation out of the White House?
    Ms. RENO. You have access under the order of the special division of the court for what is in the notification, as I understand it.
 Page 203       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SNOWBARGER. But nothing beyond that?
    Ms. RENO. That's correct.
    Mr. SNOWBARGER. You will hold everything else close to the vest?
    Ms. RENO. I am going to try to conduct an appropriate investigation. I am going to try to work with the chairman in every way that I can on issues of immunity. We did so with Senator Thompson. We're going to try. At times our interests may be in conflict, but where they aren't, I'm going to try to make sure we do everything we can to cooperate.
    Mr. SNOWBARGER. My frustration is that you say in the notice that no further investigation is warranted, and at the same time you have also indicated to the public that no one has yet been exonerated; that the investigation is still ongoing; that if new evidence is found, that then you will go back and re-examine this decision, only you will take another 90 days to do that.
    And it seems like we keep postponing and postponing any final determination that would allow us to get into things that may not be criminal in nature, but may be a part of the campaign finance investigation that we need to pursue.
    Ms. RENO. I just want to make sure that no stone is left unturned so that when you call me before you, if I'm still around after the investigation has been concluded, I can answer your questions to the best of my ability.
    Mr. SNOWBARGER. Well, my comment is your thoroughness affects our thoroughness.
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. SNOWBARGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. BURTON. Mr. Miller.
 Page 204       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. MILLER. Madam Attorney General, I'm new to this committee. This is my first day to attend this committee meeting. And I have a question that is unrelated to what has been asked so far, if I may ask, and that is concerning a horrible crime that took place in my area of Florida, Sarasota, FL, and the Department of Justice is now involved in it, and what—I'm going to ask what you know about it, but also get your commitment that you will do everything you can to have the accused—may I describe the crime?
    Ms. RENO. I know about the crime.
    Mr. MILLER. I want to make sure everybody else understands what a horrible, heinous crime took place.
    On November 7th, last month, a 35-year-old mother of six children, including four quadruplets, who are aged 23 months, was murdered. The 13-year-old returned from school that afternoon and found the mother lying on the kitchen floor with the quadruplets covered with their mother's blood.
    The good police work in our area has identified the conspiracy apparently that has taken place and a hired gun. The person that's accused is a U.S. citizen born in California, raised in Texas. He returned to Texas and then went to Mexico, and now he's being held in jail in Mexico. The Mexican Government is resisting, and the person should be deported. He is a U.S. citizen. Mexico has nothing to do with this particular crime. It is outrageous that they are holding somebody that's a U.S. citizen accused of a murder in the United States.
    And what I'm asking is that we do everything we can to extradite him, because the treaty says the word ''may,'' so there is the ability to do that. And what we need to do is buildup as much pressure on the Mexican Government, and I'm asking if you will use your offices and the Department of Justice as much as possible to persuade them that Mr. Del Toro should be brought back to the United States to stand trial. He's a U.S. citizen, and there's no excuse, in our opinion. And it is a high-profile case in Florida.
 Page 205       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Hopefully, you have talked to Mr. Moreland our State's attorney. So I would appreciate anything you can do on this case, and maybe you can update us right on where we stand.
    Ms. RENO. This is a terrible crime. I heard about it almost the moment it happened, and it is just a very, very terrible crime.
    With most South American countries, language similar to our extradition treaty with Mexico states that the requested country may refuse extradition. A requested country may refuse extradition if the requesting country does not waive the death penalty. Despite the apparent flexibility that you referred to in article 8 of the treaty, Mexico does not have any discretion in requesting assurances on the death penalty, since its domestic law prohibits the surrender of anyone facing the death penalty without such assurances.
    We are working closely with Mr. Moreland's office to do everything we can to see that he is brought back to stand trial as soon as humanly possible, and I follow this matter almost on a daily basis.
    Mr. MILLER. To me it is just outrageous that a U.S. citizen can escape. What would have happened if Timothy McVeigh had escaped to Mexico, is the question I would ask. Would they be holding him, and we would have to wait for him to stand trial?
    Ms. RENO. One of the things that I am trying to address with my colleagues, and that's the reason, Mr. Chairman, if this could be almost the limit, because they're waiting, is, as we build trust in the world, I think it is very important that everyone know that there is no safe haven and no place to hide. I think that should apply both to people who are U.S. nationals and people who are nationals of other countries if they commit a serious crime here in this country.
    And I want to do everything I can to build an understanding that says it's not a matter of sovereignty, it's a matter of what a good prosecutor says. And a good prosecutor knows that the best, most appropriate, most just place to try a case is where the crime was committed.
 Page 206       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So I have spent a lot of time and effort on that. I think we're making slow progress, but we have much more to do, and it is something that is of very, very great concern to me. And when I see situations like this, it's something that I focus on daily.
    Mr. MILLER. I appreciate that. If there's time, I give it to Mr. Barr. If Mr. Barr—can he take the rest of my time?
    Mr. BURTON. You can yield your time to him.
    Mr. MILLER. I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Barr.
    Mr. BARR. Quickly, Ms. Reno, to followup on a prior discussion that you had with regard to the applicability of section 591(c), the other persons under the independent counsel statute vis-a-vis John Huang and Charlie Trie in particular.
    Does the fact that you have indeed, as you've indicated, not ruled out investigations of them, but you have not done so under the independent counsel, indicate to us that you have concluded that there is no and would be no conflict of interest with regard to them? Keeping in mind that the language of 591(c) indicates that it may result in a conflict, not that it shall result in a conflict, but may result in a conflict, have you reached a conclusion that an investigation of John Huang and/or Charlie Trie would not result in any conflict of interest?
    Ms. RENO. Or may not result. At this point, based on all I know, I have not triggered the statute with respect to them.
    Mr. BARR. But does that mean that you have concluded that an investigation of them would not result in a conflict of interest?
    Ms. RENO. It means that I have not determined that an investigation or prosecution of either man by the Department of Justice may result in a personal, financial or political conflict of interest.
    Mr. BARR. That is what you have concluded?
    Ms. RENO. Yes, sir.
 Page 207       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired.
    We have our differences, Ms. Reno, but I want to tell you, I really appreciate your patience today in being with us, and I hope we have a chance to talk again before long. You are free to go to your next appointment. Thank you very much.
    Ms. RENO. Thank you.
    Mr. BURTON. We will take a 10-minute break, and then we will have Mr. Freeh.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. BURTON. The committee will come to order. Is Mr. Lantos—there he is. I see his smiling face.
    Unless there is an objection, I do not see a need for opening statements. We have already had opening statements. So, Mr. Freeh, I see you are ready to go.
    [Witness sworn.]
    Mr. BURTON. In accordance with the motion that was made earlier, there will be 30 minutes on each side, but I have talked to Mr. Lantos, and rather than go with the second hour being split in 10-minute segments, we will go straight to the 5-minute rule to try to expedite the hearing. Director Freeh, we will try to get as much done as possible. I hate to have you come back tomorrow, but that is one of those things that——
    Mr. FREEH. No problem, sir.
    Mr. BURTON. Mr. Bennett? I am sorry. Your opening statement. Do you have an opening statement you would like to make?

STATEMENT OF LOUIS J. FREEH, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
    Mr. FREEH. If I could, sir.
 Page 208       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I will try to go through it quickly. I will submit it for the record in its entirety.
    Let me just say I do appreciate the opportunity to appear here today. I have immense respect for this committee, for you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lantos, and I am very happy to appear and answer as many of your questions as I can. What is being discussed here is both simple and complex. The simple part of it is that the Attorney General did ask me with respect to the independent counsel matter what my advice would be, and I furnished that to her in confidence as I have given her much advice over 4 1/2 years. The more complex issues are the specifics of that advice and the obvious differences between the oversight function and the investigative function which are different in kind as well as in degree.
    Prior to the hearing, as you know, not in any public way have I discussed the specific recommendation which I made to the Attorney General. That has been my decision and not her decision. I feel very strongly that I, as well as future FBI Directors, should be free to give honest and sensitive advice to the Attorney General, particularly in matters of criminal investigation. So I do have reservations in even making that recommendation public today, although it is probably the worst kept secret in Washington. Before I do that, however, I do want to talk about what I think are the serious implications and the issues involved when an FBI Director is asked to make public that recommendation, which I will certainly do today.
    When we conduct investigations, we must ensure that people's rights as well as the ongoing investigation is not damaged or undermined. It is best that information with the strong potential particularly to be misunderstood or misinterpreted be disclosed only in exceptional matters relating to this type of an issue. But because there has been widespread reporting, and I deplore the leaks of that reporting with respect to what I recommended and only after discussing this with the Attorney General and many other people am I willing to disclose what I believe should always be, at least in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation, a matter of confidence between an investigator and the chief prosecutor, in this case my boss, the Attorney General.
 Page 209       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I do not believe, however, it is appropriate for me to go beyond what that specific recommendation was. To explain why I made it, on the basis of what facts, for what reason would require me to discuss not just the grand jury investigation, but the theory of the investigation, which I certainly would not want any potential subjects to hear, even if they think they could otherwise figure it out themselves. I also think that providing those kinds of details would do great damage to the relationship between Attorneys General and FBI Directors for many years to come.
    Your committee, Mr. Chairman, has a deep and abiding respect for the principles inherent in our criminal justice system. Nothing that I would say today would I ever intend nor would anyone here intend to violate any of the due process or the privacy rights of individuals who become the subject of inquiry. To the contrary, we take great comfort in the care with which you, Mr. Chairman, personally, and the committee have handled very sensitive foreign counterintelligence information that we have been providing to this committee. And we are very confident in that relationship and in the high responsible manner in which that has been handled.
    Let me just explain my reasons and my concern in not discussing fully my recommendation. It is not based on any fear of scrutiny or openness. We must be mindful obviously that there is a pending criminal investigation, that has not changed, investigation to which all of this relates. In most cases, we do not even confirm, as you know, the existence of a criminal investigation.
    Mr. Bennett, you were a distinguished U.S. Attorney for many years. It has been the long practice of the Department of Justice officials not to even disclose the existence of an investigation. The reasons for that are simple. We have a dual obligation to conduct an investigation, but also to protect the rights and the reputations of people who are in many cases exonerated. So for those reasons, over the course of many months, despite reports of what my recommendation was or was not, I have refused to publicly comment about any aspect of the investigation, including the legal issues relating to the independent counsel statute.
 Page 210       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I have been particularly concerned that my comments could be misunderstood. People could believe that I have reached some findings or conclusions of fact with respect to whether someone has committed a crime or done anything improper which is not the case. And I know, Mr. Chairman, that you and your many colleagues fully understand the nuances of the independent counsel statute. Many people do not. If they were to hear what the recommendations of an FBI Director were, they could misinterpret and misconstrue what actually is the process here, which is a process of consideration rather than a process of fact-finding per se.
    In recommending to the Attorney General that an independent counsel be appointed, I did not and do not believe that any particular person has committed a crime or is a target of a grand jury or even has done anything improper. I recommended appointment of an independent counsel to investigate whether crimes may have been committed, but nothing more should be inferred from that recommendation.
    I surely do not think that you or any other member of the committee wants an FBI Director who publicly talks about evidence that relates to individuals, either charged or uncharged, who discloses theories of investigation, who discloses matters before a grand jury or names people who either are being investigated or have chosen to assist the Government in our investigation.
    Ignoring for a moment the certain harm to the investigation such disclosures would cause, it also, in my view, violates the basic notions of due process: privacy, fundamental fairness and the presumption of innocence. I know, Mr. Chairman, of your deep and abiding respect for these principles, principles that are at the very heart of our criminal justice system. Those values undoubtedly would be harmed, in my view, if either the Attorney General or I discuss what underlies our recommendations or our differences as a matter of law.
    I have stated many times my respect for Attorney General Reno. In the 4 1/4 years we have worked together, I have seen her bring nothing but integrity and honesty to the table. In this instance, she asked my recommendation. I strongly believe she is entitled to seek and receive the best judgment and unvarnished opinions of her subordinates, which is me. And that is what I gave her here. We certainly should think long and hard before we create a precedent or a notion that some future FBI Director, not myself, would hesitate when it came to giving his boss the frank and honest recommendations that he or she requested.
 Page 211       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Everybody in the FBI understands that the decision here was the Attorney General's decision, hers alone, not mine. I do not question that and have never understood anything to the contrary. That I made a recommendation different from the ultimate outcome in this instance does not even mean there is a professional rift between us. It merely means we disagree on a matter of law, a judgment about a legal issue. Prosecutors and investigators, I have been both, often do disagree. That two lawyers disagree should not be surprising.
    When I was a district court judge, no district court judge likes to get reversed, but when I did get reversed, it was always better to be reversed 3 to 0 than 3 to 1 or 2 to 1 because there was always the assumption that everybody was going to read the law and the facts just like we had on the district court bench. As Mr. Lantos pointed out, we frequently have 5 to 4 decisions coming from our court. We rarely have 9 to 0 decisions.
    On issues of fact, the Attorney General and I do not disagree. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the FBI is not being impeded in any way in conducting our investigation. No investigative avenues have been closed and nothing has changed in that regard as a result of the decision last Tuesday. The Task Force was formed last December. Their marching orders from both myself and the Attorney General are to go wherever the evidence leads them.
    The FBI has dedicated nearly 100 people to this Task Force. We are using our people all over the world to investigate and gather evidence. We have done 1,100 interviews, we have conducted—more than 1,000 subpoenas have been issued. While candidly there have been some problems during the investigation and, having done this for 23 years, I never had an investigation that did not have problems, I am confident that this task force is focused and following a methodical investigative strategy.
    Mr. Chairman, I have been in Government service for 23 years. I have served every Attorney General since Edward Levy. I have been an investigator, a prosecutor, and a judge. I follow a couple of simple rules. I fully and fairly investigate all the matters within my jurisdiction. I take the evidence wherever it follows, wherever it takes me. I let the chips fall where they may. And I protect the rights of the guilty subjects as well as those who may be exonerated after our investigation. I will make sure that I continue doing that in this case.
 Page 212       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    When I gave my recommendation to the Attorney General, my sole objective was to give her what she asked for, my candid analysis, conclusions and recommendation. Every Attorney General is entitled to that from the FBI Director. I am obligated, I believe, to provide my views in an absolutely nonpartisan manner. That is why you, the Congress, gave the FBI Director a 10-year term, to give me the freedom to do so without concern about those views either outside or within the criminal justice system.
    I have a dual obligation in all of my investigations. I have to conduct a full and fair inquiry. I have to protect the integrity of the investigation, the relationship that not just I enjoy with the Attorney General, but the relationship that FBI agents all over the world and all over the country enjoy with their prosecutors. I have to protect the rights of the innocent. I have to protect the reputations of those who may be exonerated. It is a difficult balance and in this particular case, because of your very appropriate oversight responsibilities, and the fact that we have an active comprehensive criminal investigation, there are areas, unfortunately, where we cannot share and discuss things as fully as we might do if this was a closed investigation.
    Again, I very much appreciate the opportunity of appearing before this committee. I will be happy to try to answer as many questions as I can.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Freeh follows:]
    INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 688 TO 693 HERE
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]

    Mr. BURTON. We are dispensing with any opening statements since we have already made those earlier. Mr. Bennett will start the questioning and then I will——
    Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a friendly question or raise a point of order?
 Page 213       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BURTON. You can do either at this point.
    Mr. LANTOS. Let me first ask a friendly question.
    Mr. BURTON. OK.
    Mr. LANTOS. When we agreed on the procedures you and I will be following here earlier, our understanding on the Democratic side was that, that is exactly what we did with the Attorney General, that there will be an initial time allocation to the Republican Members and then to the Democratic Members. Then we alternate.
    Mr. BURTON. Right.
    Mr. LANTOS. We did not have any staff questioning. I think it is incredible that with the Attorney General here and the Director of the FBI here, elected Members of Congress are not given an opportunity to proceed with their questions on both sides. I have no objections to Mr. Bennett as an individual. I think he is a very able person. But I think this hearing should be conducted by the Members and I will be more than happy to obviously have you as the chairman proceed with your questions. But I have objections to staff asking questions before Members do.
    Mr. BURTON. Well, we have done that in the past, but in this particular case, since we have the head of the FBI here, I will accede to your wishes and if I may call you Louis, briefly, Louis, I will ask you the questions that we have before us.
    First of all, let me talk about, and you can start the clock, let me talk to you about something that I discussed with the Attorney General earlier. I do not believe I am violating any secret meeting. I think that this is something that can be discussed especially since she brought it up today.
    Back I believe in February, I have a document here, I think it was given to us, this is not a secret document. It was attached to a secret document. It was in response to the Deputy Attorney General's request to answer questions submitted by Charles Ruff, counsel to the President, and the comment was, it says,
 Page 214       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Louis, if the memorandum leaks, it will put the FBI in a negative light since certain members of the White House are currently under investigation while we are providing the White House counsel with or would be providing the White House counsel with background information on the PRC political funding issue.

    Now, you told me, I believe, along with your staff when we met that you told the Justice Department that you didn't think this information should be given to the White House. Subsequent to that, you went to Egypt and while you were in Egypt, I believe it was Mr. Bryant, I am not sure exactly who it was, was summoned to the Justice Department by, I can't remember who the—Ms. Gorelick, who was the Chief Deputy to Attorney General Reno, and said that they wanted the information which you said you didn't think should be given to the White House.
    Your Deputy, I believe it was Mr. Bryant, then took the information over there to Ms. Gorelick and the Attorney General. And on his return, as he was returning, he conveyed to me, I believe you were present, he conveyed to me that he thought, well, we better talk to Louis first. We better talk to Louis about this because he did not want this to go to the White House because of some of the implications involved. They then called you in Egypt and you were, according to the reports, very upset. Then you contacted the Attorney General who, after you contacted her, concurred with what you said. And to our knowledge the information was not then sent to the White House. Is that the way it happened?
    Mr. FREEH. Yes, sir, that is correct. We had discussed this information prior to my trip to Egypt and we had agreed that the material would not be briefed to the White House because of my concern about the potential prospect of individuals learning about it while it was an active inquiry. That was agreed and the call that I made to the Attorney General was in response to my Deputy telling me that there was now a movement to brief the information to the White House. The fact, the bottom line was it was never briefed to the White House.
 Page 215       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BURTON. The Attorney General—I am not trying to drive a wedge between anybody, contrary to what some people may think. The Attorney General indicated that she initiated the call to you in Egypt and your Deputy told us at that meeting that he was concerned about what he had done and that is why he called you in Egypt and then you called her back. I just want to get that straight. You did initiate the call to the Attorney General from Egypt?
    Mr. FREEH. Bob Bryant reached out for me. We had a discussion on a secure phone about what was going on and I called the Attorney General.
    Mr. BURTON. Thank you. I won't pursue that any further. I think we have covered that enough. But it did trouble me at the time and it troubles me now that the Chief Deputy to the Attorney General, and the Attorney General, after having been told that she didn't think this information should be given to the White House in your absence, asked for the information, for what reason I know not, and then after the information was given to them there was some concern about it getting to the White House. That troubled me then. It troubles me now.
    I think that you and the Attorney General, as law enforcement officials, the top in this country, should be not respecting anybody, me, the President or anyone else as far as the administration of justice is concerned and when you think something like that shouldn't be given to the White House and in your absence there is a reversal of a decision that has been made, it is troubling.
    Mr. FREEH. If I could just add, as a result of that, of that series of events, we did put into place, the Attorney General and I, a process whereby we have to be consulted before any matters even remotely relating to this investigation are briefed to the NSC or anyone else in the executive branch. And that, to my mind, has worked very well so far.
    Mr. BURTON. So that would be a joint decision?
    Mr. FREEH. Yes. And if I have an objection to it, we would sit down and discuss it.
 Page 216       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BURTON. I see, OK. In her opening statement, Ms. Reno stated a number of times that she based her decision on the evidence and the law. You also looked at the evidence and the law when you made your decision, didn't you, Mr. Freeh?
    Mr. FREEH. Yes, sir.
    Mr. BURTON. And looking at exactly the same facts and law as the Attorney General, you reaped the opposite conclusion, that an independent counsel should be appointed in this case.
    Mr. FREEH. I recommended an independent counsel should be appointed. But obviously we are looking at the same facts and the same law.
    Mr. BURTON. As Director of the FBI, you have had access to the facts developed during the Justice Department's investigation; isn't that correct?
    Mr. FREEH. Yes, sir.
    Mr. BURTON. When you made your recommendation to the Attorney General, did you take the section of the independent counsel statute which deals with conflicts into account, section 592?
    Mr. FREEH. I took that into account, yes, sir.
    Mr. BURTON. Did you conclude that the Attorney General had such a conflict of interest in this case that she could not credibly conduct this investigation?
    Mr. FREEH. Again, I just would respectfully like to report to you certainly the recommendation that I have disclosed, but not discuss the bases or the means that go beyond that recommendation. Once I do that, I think I start to get into the areas of the facts and not the law, but the facts that I feel constrained not to do.
    Mr. BURTON. The only reason I bring that up is not to put you in an untenable situation, but there is some question about whether or not the conflict-of-interest provision of section 591(c) should trigger the appointment of an independent counsel and eliminate even the appearance of impropriety or possible appearance of impropriety. That is why I am asking that question because you as the Director of the FBI must have had some concern about that.
 Page 217       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. FREEH. I certainly had some concern about it to the point where I did make the recommendation that I made, which was a carefully considered one—only a recommendation—based, as you noted, on the facts and the law; and I gave her my best judgment.
    Mr. BURTON. But your determination was based in part then on section 591(c)?
    Mr. FREEH. I made the recommendation on more than one basis.
    Mr. BURTON. Was that part of it?
    Mr. FREEH. Again, I would rather not get into the particulars of what part of the statute I made it on or didn't make it on. It is fair to say that I made my recommendation on more than one basis. But I would prefer not to go beyond that.
    Mr. BURTON. The question I am asking you, Mr. Freeh, is not one that would be in any way construed to impede your investigation or be causing a problem with grand jury testimony or the secrecy provisions of the grand jury. So I do not understand why you can't answer that question whether or not 591(c) was a part of your decision.
    Mr. FREEH. Well, again, with great respect, Mr. Chairman, I am not so much concerned that an answer to that question would violate any portion of the grand jury evidence in this case. I am very concerned that the answer to that question and a more comprehensive response will start very seriously to impede the relationship that Directors have, and should have, with their Attorneys General, both this one and those to come.
    So I respectfully ask that I not be required to give the specific bases. I think I can report to you that I made the recommendation on more than one basis. I think that is a pretty comprehensive answer.
    Mr. BURTON. Did you conclude that the Attorney General had such a conflict of interest in this case that she could not credibly conduct this investigation in a general sense—the appearance of a conflict?
 Page 218       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. FREEH. I do not think I could make any conclusion as to what someone else would have or not have as a conflict. I think what I did is, I gave my recommendation based on what I understood the facts and the law to be. But a conflict, as you know, is a very subjective calculation and whether it is personal or political under the statute, it requires the person charged with that decision, which is the Attorney General, to evaluate that; and what I said was what I would do and what my recommendation was.
    Mr. BURTON. When I talked to your counsel and my counsel talked to your counsel recently, we were trying to work out an arrangement so that we could see a redacted copy of the memo, one that would not jeopardize the grand jury investigation or in any way give anybody an indication of where you were going with your investigation.
    You appeared and your counsel appeared to try—to at least want to try to work that out so we could get a redacted copy. Did you talk to the Attorney General or her counsel about trying to get us a redacted copy?
    Mr. FREEH. Yes, we spoke about that yesterday after our meeting. If you read the last paragraph of the letter that we sent yesterday, which I asked to be included, we do suggest that after the hearings there still would perhaps remain questions about contents and specifics; and I have suggested that without either the Congress or the executive waiving any of its privileges or rights, it would make sense for people of goodwill, as we are here, to sit down and see whether there are some things that can be distributed. But that is ultimately the Attorney General's decision.
    Mr. BURTON. So you suggested to the Attorney General and her counsel that we get a redacted copy or at least negotiate to get a redacted copy of the memo?
    Mr. FREEH. That we negotiate that and that our lawyers sit down, yes, sir.
    Mr. BURTON. Did the Attorney General or the Justice Department write the letter to which you attached your signature?
 Page 219       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. FREEH. They drafted the letter, but they sent it over. We reviewed it, and as I said, I ensured that the last paragraph reflected what I had discussed yesterday with the Attorney General, which is keeping the door open to have our lawyers discuss this matter.
    Mr. BURTON. Well, what changes did you make in the letter aside from the last paragraph?
    Mr. FREEH. That is the only one I am aware of.
    Mr. BURTON. So the letter was drafted and written by the Justice Department and you signed it?
    Mr. FREEH. Well, my general counsel spent unfortunately most of yesterday going through different drafts of it. So we had a lot of input into it.
    Mr. BURTON. Thank you. Were you in attendance at the final meeting where the Attorney General made the decision not to appoint an independent counsel?
    Mr. FREEH. I don't know that I was. I had a conversation with the Attorney General Tuesday morning. This was following many discussions over the period of several weeks or months. Whether she had subsequent meetings after that—I believe she probably did; I was not present at those meetings.
    Mr. BURTON. Did she discuss with you in any way the other people with whom she was conferring about her decision?
    Mr. FREEH. No, not by name or not specifically. I knew she had received memos from other people and she certainly received ours.
    Mr. BURTON. The Attorney General's decision not to appoint an independent counsel was based solely on the phone calls made by the President and the Vice President; isn't that true?
    Mr. FREEH. Yes, that is what her filing to the court reports.
 Page 220       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BURTON. Is it your understanding that any lines of inquiry have been closed down?
    Mr. FREEH. No, sir. As far as I understand, as far as the Attorney General and I discussed, and as she has said publicly, there is no area of this case which is closed to the investigation.
    Mr. BURTON. The reason I ask that question is, Vice President Gore—and I asked this question of the Attorney General earlier—Vice President Gore indicated that he was glad this was behind him and there was—that the investigation was over. But that was not a correct statement because your investigation, wherever it leads, is still continuing and is sanctioned and supported by the Attorney General?
    Mr. FREEH. Our investigation is continuing as she described it to you this morning.
    Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, would you yield for a clarification on that point?
    Mr. BURTON. I would be happy to yield to my colleague.
    Mr. COX. My understanding of the chairman's question is that there are no other lines of inquiry that are not open, but I believe that we are all in agreement that there will be no further investigation into the phone calls by the Vice President and by the President. Is that your understanding?
    Mr. FREEH. That is not my understanding. With respect to the Attorney General's decision as to those transactions, as they relate to two covered individuals under one specific statute, that, as a legal matter, has been resolved. The transactions themselves, as they may be part of other activities, is still an open part of an inquiry.
    Mr. COX. I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    If I might, one further question, is there an ongoing investigation into the phone calls?
 Page 221       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. FREEH. Well, I wouldn't characterize it as ''into the phone calls.'' To the extent that——
    Mr. COX. To the extent that that is a transaction?
    Mr. FREEH. Yes.
    Mr. COX. I want to know whether or not there is going to be more investigation of that transaction.
    Mr. FREEH. With respect to the phone calls as transactions, those remain an open part of the inquiry.
    Mr. COX. So there is an investigation ongoing into the phone calls?
    Mr. FREEH. Yes, I wouldn't characterize it as an investigation into the phone calls. But the transactions, along with many other transactions, are part of what is still an open inquiry.
    Mr. COX. Well, the chairman has been generous with his time. I am sufficiently confused. I may need to come back to this.
    Thank you.
    Mr. BURTON. Is it also your understanding that the Attorney General's decision did not take into account anyone's knowledge at the White House or the DNC of illegal foreign money coming into the DNC?
    Mr. FREEH. She stated this morning that it was specifically limited to the 607 issues.
    Mr. BURTON. Mr. Freeh, over 65 people have invoked the fifth amendment or fled the country in the course of the committee's investigation. Have you ever experienced so many unavailable witnesses in any matter in which you have prosecuted or on which you have been involved?
 Page 222       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. FREEH. Actually, I have.
    Mr. BURTON. You have. Give me a run-down on that quickly.
    Mr. FREEH. I spent about 16 years doing organized crime cases in New York City, and many people were frequently unavailable.
    Mr. BURTON. So was that the only time you experienced something like that?
    Mr. FREEH. It went on for quite a while.
    Mr. BURTON. So the only time that you experienced anything like this was when you were investigating an organized crime syndicate.
    Mr. FREEH. There have been cases, certainly. You asked me about my experience.
    Mr. BURTON. I understand. I am just pulling your leg here a little bit.
    Does it concern you that a number of individuals who have taken the fifth or have fled the country were associates of the President, for instance Webb Hubbell, Mark Middleton and so forth?
    Mr. FREEH. What concerns me here, Mr. Chairman, are any facts which are certainly relevant to an inquiry, any facts which are evidence, any facts upon which we can make determinations either to charge or not charge, refer or not refer. I don't think any specific event or individual should be highlighted. I don't think that would be fair to them for me to do that here. But I am interested in anything related to our inquiry, which is very broad-ranging.
    Mr. BURTON. Well, essentially then your opinion with respect to the appointment of an independent counsel is based on the appearance of a conflict of interest involving the individuals who may have had contact with the President?
 Page 223       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. FREEH. The recommendation was made on more than one single basis.
    Mr. BURTON. But this was one of them?
    Mr. FREEH. Well, I prefer to just let that answer stand where it is. It does cover, I believe, your question.
    Mr. BURTON. In your investigation of figures like John Huang, Charlie Trie and Johnny Chung, does it concern you that these individuals are able to gain access to the highest levels of the Clinton administration, some on a pretty regular basis?
    Mr. FREEH. Again, what concerns me is not access or lack of access. What concerns me is whether anybody who is the subject of this investigation—there are many subjects, many of whom will be exonerated, I think, at the end of the day; but what concerns me is anything they have done or may have done which violates the law and which should result in some grand jury action by some prosecutor.
    Mr. BURTON. In this situation, is it your opinion that the appointment of an independent counsel is entirely within the spirit and letter of the law?
    Mr. FREEH. If you are asking me whether I think my recommendation had a sound basis in law and fact, I believe it did, sir.
    Mr. BURTON. Mr. Freeh, there was discussion between—as to FBI special agents assigned to the Task Force. Do those agents report to Task Force attorneys or the FBI headquarters or field office supervisors?
    Mr. FREEH. I think it is fair to say they certainly report to their FBI supervisors, the inspector in charge. They regularly speak to, in fact, they cohabitat the Task Force base with prosecutors and attorneys. They also have reporting obligations, as does the chief investigator there, Mr. DeSarno, directly back to me and my deputies. So they report to the FBI. They certainly work, discuss and relay information to the prosecutors.
 Page 224       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BURTON. Have you ever seen any of the press reports reporting frustration of FBI agents that were assigned to the Task Force? For example, if you look in this week's issue of Time Magazine there are some FBI agents that expressed some concern about their frustration with being limited in having access to certain people.
    Mr. FREEH. I am certainly aware of those stories.
    Mr. BURTON. Have you talked to any of your agents who have expressed this kind of frustration?
    Mr. FREEH. We discuss on a regular basis, in fact, on a weekly basis, the conduct of the investigation, where we are proceeding, whether or not it is proceeding in the direction that we believe it should be, whether witnesses are being contacted promptly, whether subpoenas are being returned and, yes, from time to time investigators have expressed frustration with the pace of things, with developments. And that is a regular part, I would report to you, of almost any complex investigation.
    Mr. BURTON. Let me ask you this, have any of your agents indicated that they felt their ability to investigate has been impeded by the Task Force or anybody at the Justice Department?
    Mr. FREEH. Not impeded in the sense that they were unable to conduct what we believe is the requisite investigation. There have been complaints and there have been differences between prosecutors and agents in this case—again, not an uncommon phenomenon—about the scope or the direction or the perspective; but those have been, to my satisfaction, resolved without the investigation being harmed or impeded.
    Mr. BURTON. Well, you said not in that sense. In what sense were there some suggestions that they were impeded or being frustrated? What did they say? What were their complaints?
    Mr. FREEH. We discuss regularly the pace with which grand jury materials are returned, the pace with which witnesses are interviewed, the pace with which parts of the investigation are moving forward. So as I said to you, there have been issues in that regard.
 Page 225       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    There have also been issues where the prosecutors have said we have not been moving quick enough or fast enough. I have taken those with consideration, in some cases appropriately criticizing us, and I have taken steps to compensate for that on our side.
    Mr. BURTON. Well, this next question bears upon the frustration level of some of your agents. How many of the FBI agents assigned to the Task Force have requested reassignment or been reassigned since the Justice Department task force investigation began?
    Mr. FREEH. I don't know personally of any FBI personnel who have requested reassignment because of frustration or concerns about the conduct of the investigation. We have about 93 people there, agents and support. I will check for you, but I don't know about anyone who has asked for reassignment for those reasons.
    Mr. BURTON. Well, there have been some that have been reassigned, I understand.
    Mr. FREEH. We have had a lot of people there on a temporary basis. We have moved people in and out because of the numbers required. I will check after the hearing today, but I don't know of any instance where someone has asked to be reassigned because they were frustrated with the course of the investigation.
    Mr. BURTON. In your opening statement you complimented the investigators and lawyers of this committee in terms of the handling of classified material. Is it your intention to have FBI agents make efforts to see information compiled by this committee?
    Mr. FREEH. I think that is an area that we spoke about with Mr. Bennett. It would be helpful to our investigation. We would certainly abide by whatever parameters were appropriate. But, yes, it would be very helpful.
    Mr. BURTON. We would like to invite you to coordinate efforts by your investigative staff with ours to try to facilitate that, because we may have some information that might be helpful to you.
 Page 226       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. FREEH. Thank you.
    Mr. BURTON. What kind of permission do FBI agents have to get from the Justice Department to interview senior White House staff? What kind of clearance do they have to have? Do they have to go to the Justice Department or the Task Force to get approval or authorization to interview people at the White House?
    Mr. FREEH. In the course of this investigation, we have arranged those types of interviews generally by noticing the people involved or the office involved. In some instances, on several occasions, we have not done so, depending on the circumstances of the interview and the venue where we think it should be conducted.
    Mr. BURTON. In most cases, do you have to clear with the Task Force or the Justice Department or someone over there? Do you have to clear in most cases whether or not an FBI agent goes in and talks to somebody?
    Mr. FREEH. In most cases, before we would interview a very high-ranking member of the administration, for instance, we would, of course, tell the Assistant U.S. Attorney, the prosecutors that was being done. They would probably make a contact or liaison with the person or, if they had a lawyer, with the lawyer. Many individuals are now represented by counsel and of course we can't go and interview someone if we know they have counsel so in some cases we would speak to the——
    Mr. GILMAN. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. BURTON. Just 1 second. Have they turned you down on any people that you wanted to have FBI agents investigate or talk to?
    Mr. FREEH. No. Not that I am aware of.
    Mr. BURTON. Mr. Gilman.
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for permitting me to intervene. The Attorney General earlier today said only if they are covered, and they are covered if the Inspector General—if an independent counsel regime has been triggered. So I am asking you, are there times when you want to interrogate someone and they are not covered because there has been no independent counsel regime that has been triggered? Does that prevent you from at any time interrogating a potential witness?
 Page 227       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. FREEH. No, it doesn't, Mr. Gilman. The chairman asked whether when we wanted to interview somebody; he did not say whether as a subject or a witness; but in any case whether we would notify anybody in the White House or the Justice Department. Again, if a person had counsel, we would have to speak to their attorney.
    Mr. GILMAN. That is not what I am asking. I am asking if there is a potential witness that you want to interrogate—forget whether he is in the White House or not in the White House—and they are not covered because there is no independent counsel that has been triggered, are you then prevented from interrogating that potential witness?
    Mr. FREEH. No, sir.
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. BURTON. When the FBI investigators want to request documents from the White House, what procedure has to be followed?
    Mr. FREEH. We draw up a subpoena and we serve the subpoena. The subpoena has to be approved by the prosecutor. It is——
    Mr. BURTON. So it has to go through the Task Force or the prosecutor?
    Mr. FREEH. Yes; we cannot issue subpoenas on our own.
    Mr. BURTON. Has the White House certified to the Task Force that it has completed its production?
    Mr. FREEH. I think there is probably, as we speak, outstanding production. I would have to check on that. We have gotten many records. Whether we have gotten all of them on the dates that they were requested and whether or not there have been extensions, I would have to do some research.
    Mr. BURTON. Well, if you have got them and we haven't, I would like to know about it because we sent a subpoena in March, and they said we had everything in June; and yesterday we got more, and we just keep getting more and more and more, and they keep telling us we have everything. So if you have, if they have concluded everything for you, I would like to know about it. Has the White House continued to produce documents, are they still giving you documents?
 Page 228       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. FREEH. Yes, sir; they are.
    Mr. BURTON. And have delays in the White House's production of documents hampered the Task Force investigation in any way? Because we have had problems with those delays.
    Mr. FREEH. We would have liked to have gotten them quicker. There have been many delays with respect to production, and we have pursued the enforcement and the return of those subpoenas whenever we thought they were getting beyond the time requirements. But any time we do not get records as quick as we would like them, it slows things down.
    Mr. BURTON. Are you—then I presume you are not confident that you have all the documents yet?
    Mr. FREEH. I am not confident that we have all the documents yet.
    Mr. BURTON. Many of the documents produced by the DNC to this committee have been directly related to senior administration officials, including the President and the Vice President. Do you have all the documents from the DNC, Democrat National Committee?
    Mr. FREEH. Again, we have issued several subpoenas. Whether we have gotten production on all of them, I can find out for you.
    Mr. BURTON. I would like to know that, if you can give it to us. Has the DNC given the task force a date certain for the completion of its production?
    Mr. FREEH. Again, I will check for you. I am not sure. There are ongoing subpoenas. Different events trigger new subpoenas and amended subpoenas so I can get you an accurate reporting of that, but I don't know.
    Mr. BURTON. Have you given the DNC a deadline for production?
    Mr. FREEH. Every subpoena has a deadline. What we try to do is enforce that deadline and if there are things that are withheld, we want to know why. If there are privileges that are asserted, we want those privileges to be asserted in an official manner. So there is always a deadline and then sometimes extended dead lines that we are working on.
 Page 229       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BURTON. How late are they on the deadlines right now, on the deadlines that you have provided?
    Mr. FREEH. I would have to go back and crosswalk all the subpoenas with the returns.
    Mr. BURTON. Can you give that to us when you get a chance?
    Mr. FREEH. I can check for you overnight.
    Mr. BURTON. Has the DNC asserted any privileges?
    Mr. FREEH. Not that I am aware of at this point.
    Mr. BURTON. Could you check that for us as well?
    Yesterday the Los Angeles Times printed an article discussing the case of money laundering involving Charlie Trie and his associate in Macao, Ng Lap Seng, better known as Mr. Wu. This article was a continuation of the matter initially presented before this committee in October when his sister Manlin Foung testified.
    Are you familiar with that article?
    Mr. FREEH. Yes, sir.
    Mr. BURTON. Are those people being investigated, the ones that were in that article?
    Mr. FREEH. Again, for me to publicly say who we are investigating for what, or to confirm that article, wouldn't be following my obligations as Director.
    Mr. BURTON. I do not believe that your agency is. I think our staff, a gentleman who was with Senator Thompson's staff previously, now works for us; I believe he was the one who found that information or was a part of gathering that information. So I hope that you will pursue that as quickly as possible.
    I see my time has expired, but there was $200,000 that came in from Macao, from Ng Lap Seng to Charlie Trie. We now know that $80,000 was laundered. We hope that you will pursue that diligently.
 Page 230       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. Lantos.
    And we would like to enter this information into the record, without objection.
    [The information referred to follows:]
    INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 694 HERE
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]

    Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome our distinguished Director of the FBI.
    Before I begin my questioning, Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with your frustration phobia, because you have sort of probed the Director on numerous occasions about how frustrated these people are. I do not think any of his people were as frustrated as your chief counsel in submitting a resignation to you. Your chief investigators haven't yet resigned, have they, Mr. Director?
    Mr. FREEH. No, sir.
    Mr. LANTOS. Well, let me read then for the record a letter dated July 1, 1997, to the Honorable Dan Burton, chairman, from John Rowley III, who was the chief counsel of this committee on the Republican side, I might add.

    Dear Mr. Chairman: It is with sincere regret that I submit my resignation as chief counsel to the committee effective immediately.
    Six months ago, I joined the Committee with the intention of running a professional, credible investigation. With your encouragement, I immediately set out to bring on the career prosecutors, law enforcement agents and other personnel required to make that happen. However, it is now apparent that I have not been given the authority necessary to accomplish the Committee's goals. Due to the unrelenting ''self-promoting'' actions of the Committee's Investigative Coordinator, I have been unable to implement the standards of professional conduct I have been accustomed to at the United States Attorneys Office.
 Page 231       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    So I think in terms of frustration, the prize has already been taken by the former chief counsel to the majority. I think it is important to let the record show that frustrations are not unique to the cooperative efforts between the Justice Department and the FBI.
    Mr. Director, I just want to state for the record, and I hope I am not embarrassing you because you have heard this before, I have the highest regard for both your professional competence and your integrity. You have served our Nation with exemplary distinction. While everybody is aware of many of your activities, I am particularly conscious of the enormously helpful international activities you have been involved with in terms of fighting drugs, international terrorism, money laundering and others. We are honored to have you appear before us, as we were honored to have Janet Reno a few hours ago.
21I want to begin by the chairman's opening comment to the Attorney General and his reference to you about this division of views between Attorneys General and FBI directors. Am I correct in my recollection of recent American history that practically all Attorneys General and FBI directors in recent decades have had occasional disagreements?
    Mr. FREEH. I think that is fair to say, sir.
    Mr. LANTOS. So, far from this being unique, it has been the standard, accepted notion that intelligent, committed, serious, dedicated people on occasion disagree? Would you agree with that statement?
    Mr. FREEH. I think it is a healthy thing in many respects.
    Mr. LANTOS. I fully agree with you. I fully agree with you, Mr. Director.
    You have now worked with the Attorney General for 4 years, plus. Did you know her before?
    Mr. FREEH. No, sir; I did not.
 Page 232       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. LANTOS. I would like you to describe for us in your own words your judgment of her as a professional and as a person.
    Mr. FREEH. As I said in my opening statement, I have the highest regard for her as a lawyer. I think her integrity is impeccable. I have seen her bring good judgment to difficult decisions. I have seen compassion in all of her decisions, particularly where the lives or the safety of victims or law enforcement officers are concerned. It has been a pleasure dealing with her.
    One of the reasons I took this job—and I was not eager to take it, I didn't seek it—was the meeting I had with Janet Reno in April 1993. I was very impressed by her at that time and continue to be. We have a great relationship, professionally, personally, and despite what some may say or seek to say about that element of our relationship, believe me, this decision has not affected that one way or the other. I think we have great respect for each other. We differ from time to time. This is not the first time in 4 1/4 years; probably won't be the last time.
    Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Director, the Attorney General sought your opinion on many issues; am I correct?
    Mr. FREEH. Yes, sir.
    Mr. LANTOS. Do you feel that when the Attorney General seeks your opinion, is it a genuine seeking of your opinion or is she just going through a proper form, a set of motions, so that she will have the input of the Director of the FBI?
    Mr. FREEH. No; it is my understanding and my belief that she sincerely seeks those opinions. I do not think she is just doing it for pro forma reasons, and if I thought she was, I wouldn't give her my opinions.
    Mr. LANTOS. Have you at any time felt that she was dismissive of your opinions?
 Page 233       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. FREEH. No. Quite the contrary.
    Mr. LANTOS. Do you have the slightest doubt of Ms. Reno's integrity?
    Mr. FREEH. No, sir.
    Mr. LANTOS. Do you have the slightest doubt of Ms. Reno's honesty?
    Mr. FREEH. Absolutely not.
    Mr. LANTOS. Do you have the slightest doubt that Ms. Reno attempts to do her job as Attorney General in full accordance with the oath of office she took?
    Mr. FREEH. I think she meets that standard and exceeds it.
    Mr. LANTOS. Now, you obviously had a different opinion with respect to the issue we are discussing. Might your judgment be wrong?
    Mr. FREEH. It might be.
    Mr. LANTOS. It is not unreasonable for us to expect intelligent, committed, serious people occasionally to reach differing conclusions.
    Mr. FREEH. No; particularly lawyers.
    Mr. LANTOS. Particularly lawyers.
    Let me deal for a moment with your relationship and history with the President of the United States. Have you known the President for a long time?
    Mr. FREEH. I met him the first time when he interviewed me for this position. That was the first meeting.
    Mr. LANTOS. How would you characterize your relationship with the President?
    Mr. FREEH. I report to the President through the Attorney General. I am accountable to him. He hired me. He can fire me.
 Page 234       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. LANTOS. Has the President at any time attempted to influence your judgments or decisions or advice to the Attorney General on this matter?
    Mr. FREEH. No, sir.
    Mr. LANTOS. Has the Vice President at any time done so?
    Mr. FREEH. No, sir.
    Mr. LANTOS. Would you describe your relationship with both of these gentlemen as correct and professional?
    Mr. FREEH. Yes. It is not personal. It is purely professional, in the capacity that they hold in their offices and the capacity that I hold in my office.
    Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Burton attempted to make a point, not very successfully, I might add, that the letter you and the Attorney General jointly sent to Mr. Burton was basically a Reno letter and you just affixed your signature. Is that an accurate characterization of what happened?
    Mr. FREEH. It is clearly accurate that I did not draft the letter. I do not think Ms. Reno drafted it either. Counsel on both sides worked on it for quite a few hours yesterday. I read it carefully. I wouldn't have signed it or permitted my name to be on there if I did not agree with it.
    Mr. LANTOS. Well, we are living in an age when most of the letters we sign are drafted by others. Is that——
    Mr. FREEH. That is true.
    Mr. LANTOS. All right. So is it true, therefore, that if your counsel was consulted, had the opportunity to modify, reject, revise the original draft, that would have taken place prior to your affixing your name to it?
    Mr. FREEH. It was actually more than that. They faxed me the letter. I had to get the second page because my 5-year-old destroyed the first one, but I actually saw it and read it.
 Page 235       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. LANTOS. That is an improvement over the dog ate my homework but it is——
    Mr. FREEH. I did get it transmitted.
    Mr. LANTOS. It is close. Therefore, the letter the Attorney General and you jointly signed and sent to Mr. Burton on December 8 fully reflects your views?
    Mr. FREEH. Yes, sir; I agree with it.
    Mr. LANTOS. Now, if it does, then you would conclude with me that requesting your memorandum, which was offered in privacy, knowing full well that the Attorney General was calling on you for your valued advice as she was calling on others, this letter of Mr. Burton requesting your memo and subpoenaing the memo, you must consider an inappropriate request.
    Mr. FREEH. Well, I would never say that the exercise of a congressional function, particularly pursuant to your subpoena authority, is an improper request. What I think needs to happen is everybody has to look at the implications of that request. It is not improper for you to exercise your lawful authority to subpoena a document. Neither is it improper for myself and the Attorney General to, instead of immediately complying, do two things. One, point out the really severe implications that would result, in my view, if this was very easily turned over; and, second, to see if we can, as I mentioned, sit down and discuss how we can preserve your prerogative which is constitutionally critical and our prerogative to protect not only information but a confidential relationship.
    You know, you may have a Director someday, not me, as I said, who when asked for his opinion may say, well, maybe I am not going to put this in a memo. Maybe I am just going to informally in the hallway tell the Attorney General what I think. I think that is bad for the system. I think we ought to think carefully about what we are doing.
    Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Burton pressed you on the question of a conflict between your FBI investigators and the attorneys in the Department of Justice. Is it not almost routine for investigators and attorneys to have some professional conflict because they approach the problem from differing vantage points?
 Page 236       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. FREEH. I think that is fair. When I was a 25-year-old FBI agent in New York, I used to on a daily basis fight with the very fine Assistant U.S. Attorneys in an office, I later became the Deputy U.S. Attorney, because we didn't think they were moving quick enough. We didn't think they were being effective. We didn't agree with their strategy. It is really a natural part of an investigation. I would hate to see an investigation where that did not occur because somebody would not be doing their job.
    Mr. LANTOS. I could not agree with you more. So an attempt to portray an almost built-in tension in fact reflects a routine phenomenon in almost all investigative agency and attorney relationships?
    Mr. FREEH. I think it is fair to say that that friction is inherent in the two separate roles that they have. What they have to do is at the end of the day make sure that they have fully and fairly looked at everything, but the prosecutor makes the charging decisions with the grand jury. Many times an agent will think, well, this person should have been charged or not, but we shouldn't be making those decisions, and I don't think you want an FBI making those kinds of decisions.
    Mr. LANTOS. I fully agree with you, Director Freeh.
    Now, Senator Hatch proposed to you that you conduct your own investigation. You did receive that letter?
    Mr. FREEH. Yes, I did.
    Mr. LANTOS. May I ask you what your view is of that suggestion?
    Mr. FREEH. I would like to sit down with Senator Hatch and discuss it with him. I have not had the opportunity to do that. I haven't looked at the legislative history of the statute. I am told, and I don't know this for a fact because I haven't read it myself, but I am told the legislative history had to do with making it clear that the Department of Justice could investigate the Department of the Treasury and that was the intent behind the statute. I don't know that personally. I am going to research it and talk to Senator Hatch and I will certainly consider his letter, as I always do.
 Page 237       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. LANTOS. Are you gearing up for a separate investigation as we speak?
    Mr. FREEH. Well, no. We have an investigation. It is in the Task Force.
    Mr. LANTOS. Yes, but not a separate one.
    Mr. FREEH. At this point, no, I don't.
    Mr. LANTOS. Do you have the slightest doubt, Mr. Director, of Attorney General Reno's ability to enforce the laws fairly and objectively?
    Mr. FREEH. No, sir. I believe she intends to do that, and as I said, that has been reflected in all of my dealings with her.
    Mr. LANTOS. My next question is a bit nebulous, but I know you will understand what I mean and will answer very accurately.
    Sometimes we feel passionately about a position we take. Sometimes we take a position but we see powerful reasons on the other side, and it is really a close call. When you made your recommendation to have an independent counsel, on a scale of 10, was it a 10 judgment on your part, or was it a 4 or 5 or 6 judgment?
    Mr. FREEH. That is a nebulous question.
    Mr. LANTOS. Well, try to give a non-nebulous answer.
    Mr. FREEH. If I didn't believe very strongly in the recommendation, I would not have made it. I made it because I believe it was correct.
    Mr. SHAYS. Give it a 10.
    Mr. LANTOS. When the Attorney General declined to appoint an independent counsel, did the ongoing investigation come to a grinding halt?
    Mr. FREEH. No, sir, it did not impede it at all.
    Mr. LANTOS. It is proceeding with full force?
 Page 238       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. FREEH. Yes, it is.
    Mr. LANTOS. Do you have all of the necessary resources to conduct the investigation?
    Mr. FREEH. I believe that we do. We are constantly looking at equipment, resources, space. If I decide, as I might in the next couple of weeks, that I need to add more assistance or more special agents, I will certainly make that decision.
    Mr. LANTOS. Has the Attorney General in any way directly or indirectly impeded your ability to devote the resources you deem necessary to the investigation?
    Mr. FREEH. No.
    Mr. LANTOS. She has given you full support?
    Mr. FREEH. Yes, sir, she has.
    Mr. LANTOS. Let me spend a moment on the leaks.
    On December 2, Mr. Burton's favorite paper, the New York Times reported extensively on your memorandum. The story noted that the source was a, quote, ''law enforcement official who described the memo to the reporter.''
    Have you begun an internal inquiry as to the source of that leak?
    Mr. FREEH. We have had, since October 6th, an inquiry with respect to a story in the Washington Post which detailed in our view many of the inner discussions, including grand jury discussions, about this case. The references in the press to the existence of this memo and a summary of its contents is now at my direction rolled into that inquiry. Let me just say that I do deplore any leaks with respect to that. I handled this memorandum in terms of its preparation, delivery and distribution in the most careful manner that I could conceive to prevent the reports that have occurred. I don't believe, based on press accounts and what reporters have said, that anybody has a copy of the memo. They are speculating as to what is in there. The reason I don't believe they have a copy of it is because I wrote it, and many of the things which I think would normally be reported have not been reported. So I don't believe anybody has a copy of the memo, and that is what I intended.
 Page 239       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Director, congressional investigations sometimes have a way of putting a spoke in the wheel of criminal investigations. Would it damage your case if the material in your memorandum to the Attorney General would be revealed as Mr. Burton requested?
    Mr. FREEH. I believe it would damage the inquiry, and more importantly, I believe it would damage the process. You know, I write a lot of memorandums to a lot of people discussing who should be investigated for what based on what evidence, and it doesn't seem to me that you could distinguish between this memo, except for the great interest of the matter, against any other case where we decide that a local drug distributor should be prosecuted or shouldn't be, and maybe the Assistant U.S. Attorney disagrees and we write a memo. In other words, if we are going to cross that bridge we should do it with the knowledge that we would be opening up, in my view, a Pandora's box. Nobody wants to have FBI agents and prosecutors either publicly debating or publicly answering in a forum like this those types of issues. I think the due process requirements of the Constitution and decency should really prevent that.
    Mr. LANTOS. I couldn't agree with you more.
    To the best of your knowledge, has the FBI ever turned over decisional material in an open criminal case?
    Mr. FREEH. I guess it depends what you mean by decisional material. I don't know in my own experience, 23 years, including a couple of years on the bench, of an instance where we would—the Department of Justice would turn over a memo on an active criminal investigation that talks about who, what, when, and where. I don't know of any such instance.
    Mr. LANTOS. So you fully agree with our distinguished Attorney General that the memo must not be released?
    Mr. FREEH. That's my belief, sir.
 Page 240       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. LANTOS. When you wrote the memorandum, Mr. Director, did you intend it to be kept confidential?
    Mr. FREEH. Yes, which is exactly why I gave only one copy to the Attorney General and one copy to the Deputy Attorney General, and only four other copies existed.
    Mr. LANTOS. Are you aware of the fact that this committee has been plagued by leaks?
    Mr. FREEH. I know that that's been expressed publicly, yes, sir.
    Mr. BARR. That is not true. He knows it is not true.
    Mr. BURTON. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. LANTOS. Not at this point.
    Is it your considered judgment, Mr. Director, that the ongoing investigation should it lead to findings which in the view of the Attorney General would in fact call for the appointment of an independent counsel, she would not hesitate to call for one?
    Mr. FREEH. I take her at her word that if she found the triggering requirements, she would do so, yes, sir.
    Mr. LANTOS. Let me thank you for your usual professional and candid statements, and let me indicate to you that certainly I, and I believe all of my colleagues on this side, have full confidence in your integrity and ability to conduct this investigation, and I yield——
    Mr. BURTON. Would the gentleman yield? I will give him an extra minute, but I would like to respond to one of your comments if you would yield to me briefly.
    Mr. LANTOS. As a matter of courtesy, I shall yield to you.
    Mr. BURTON. Thank you very much.
 Page 241       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Let me just say that the FBI Director just complimented our legal staff and our office on the way we have kept confidential material, classified material confidential, and although there have been some allegations of leaks by our committee, I know of none that has taken place since the very, very beginning, and the person who did give that information out was chastised. Since that time, there has been no leaks that I know of, and if the gentleman from California has information contrary to that, I certainly wish he would give it to me. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. LANTOS. I am very pleased to have yielded to my friend, and I am equally pleased to respond to his request. I want to refer Mr. Burton to a letter dated June 4, 1997, by our ranking member, Mr. Waxman, which reads as follows:

    I want to bring to your personal attention several potentially serious matters regarding the conduct of the majority staff in the Committee's campaign finance investigation, and to request your immediate investigation of these matters.
    First, it has come to my attention that members of your staff interviewed a witness, Mr. Soberano, in your offices on Tuesday, May 13th. Mr. Soberano's name first appeared in the press on February 20, when the Washington Post reported that he declined John Huang's request that he make campaign contributions of questionable legality.
    Mr. Soberano has told my staff that when he was interviewed by your staff, he wanted the minority staff to attend because he felt that both Republicans and Democrats should have access to his testimony. For this reason, he asked your staff

if a

    member of the minority staff would attend the interview. According to Mr. Soberano, your staff told him that the minority staff was invited but declined to attend the interview.
 Page 242       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    In fact, the minority never declined to attend the interview, because we were not invited to Mr. Soberano's interview.
    Second, I understand that two of your senior staff took a trip to Miami on February 21 to interview witnesses, again without notice to the minority. On this trip, your staff interviewed at least two witnesses, Vivian Mannerud, a businesswoman and occasional Democratic fundraiser, and Jorge Cabrera, a convicted drug smuggler who is incarcerated in a federal penitentiary. In the case of Ms. Mannerud, I have been told that your staff showed up at her place of business unannounced, without a prior appointment and in full view of her customers, leading her to believe that she had to submit to an immediate interview. Although Ms. Mannerud is represented by counsel, I have been told that she was not advised that she could contact her attorney. Your staff did, however, apparently assure Ms. Mannerud that anything she said would be used only for the purpose of the committee's official investigation.
    Contrary to your staff's representation that the interview would be used only for official Committee business, it appears that your staff may have given information from the interviews with Ms. Mannerud and Mr. Cabrera to the media. The New York Times published a front-page story on April 4 about a contribution that Ms. Mannerud allegedly solicited from Mr. Cabrera. The New York Times article relies on information, ''congressional investigators have learned,'' attributes crucial facts to, ''the investigators, who spoke on condition of anonymity,'' and states ''[t]hat the new details about the location for the solicitation of Cabrera's contribution and the source of the money have come to light in congressional investigators' interviews here with Cabrera.'' Both Ms. Mannerud and Mr. Cabrera have told my staff that the only ''congressional investigators'' they spoke with prior to the April 4 article in the New York Times were the investigators from your staff.
    Information from these interviews may also have been given to CNN. On April 4, CNN's Inside Politics program reported that, ''the Burton committee is looking at Jorge Cabrera. . . . House GOP investigators say some of the $20,000 was drug money and that it was solicited in Havana.''
 Page 243       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    These incidents warrant your thorough investigation. If in fact your staff made false or misleading statements to Mr. Soberano and Ms. Mannerud, that would obviously be improper. If in fact information was given to the press, that would appear to conflict with your assurances that your staff would not engage in such conduct. As I recall, the first time a leak from the Government Reform Committee was reported in the press, ''Burton Admits Aide Leaked Huang Records, Roll Call, November 25, 1996,'' you stated, ''I do not allow my staff to release any information . . . without my approval and I do not expect this to happen again.''
    I have also learned this week that you plan—again without having given any notice to the minority—to send two members of your staff to Hong Kong and Taiwan and perhaps other foreign countries to conduct witness interviews from June 9 to June 20. I strongly oppose your plan to conduct secret witness interviews in foreign countries. In my experience, there is simply no precedent for this conduct. I urge you to reconsider your decision and include the minority in this trip.
    In my view, these incidents highlight the unfairness of your policy of excluding minority staff from witness interviews. Your policy denies the minority access to information you and your staff acquire and, as a result, prevents the minority from ever knowing the full facts. It forces the minority staff to try and schedule its own interviews, which is nearly impossible, since the minority does not even know who the majority staff has interviewed. And as in the case of Mr. Soberano and Ms. Mannerud appears to demonstrate, it is fundamentally unfair to witnesses who may be misled or fail to fully understand representations made by your staff or who have to spend additional time and incur additional lawyers' fees, having separate interviews with the minority.
    Prior investigations have followed a more bipartisan approach and included the minority in witness interviews. In the last Congress, as you know, you were on the Select Subcommittee of the United States Role in Iranian Arms Transfers to Croatia and Bosnia. In that investigation, Chairman Hyde specifically provided that all witness interviews be jointly conducted with majority and minority staff.
 Page 244       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Well, you asked that I provide evidence, and I am attempting to do that.
    Mr. BURTON. Go ahead.
    Mr. LANTOS [continues reading.]

    Similar policies were followed in many other investigations. For example, in the House Watergate investigation, witness interviews were conducted by a nonpartisan staff that reported to both the majority and minority counsel; in the Iran-Contra investigation, the majority notified the minority of witness interviews and provided the minority with an opportunity to participate; and in the Senate Whitewater investigation, unilateral witness interviews were prohibited by agreement of the majority and the minority. Your counterpart in the Senate, Senator Thompson, has agreed to conduct witness interviews jointly with the minority during the Senate campaign finance investigation.

    I will not read the rest of this letter, and I will not read another letter by the ranking member dated September 4, in which he again expresses concern over unauthorized release of documents obtained during the course of the investigation. There have been leaks from this committee, and we are urging you to put an end to those leaks.
    Mr. BURTON. You yielded to me, so I am going to give you 5 more minutes, because—before I do that, let me just say this. I have read those letters. They are 6 months old. We checked them out. There was no credibility to them. Those were accusations made by the minority, and if you can give me documented evidence of leaks, I will certainly accede to your wishes and we will remove people from the staff if we know that that happened. But letters with just innuendo simply aren't going to cut it. You have 5 additional minutes.
    Mr. LANTOS. I merely would like to say that the September 4 letter from our colleague, the ranking minority member, was never responded to by you, Mr. Chairman, so it is unfair to characterize our colleague's letter as innuendo when you didn't dignify it with a written response.
 Page 245       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. LANTOS. I yield.
    Mr. FATTAH. Director Freeh, let me first thank you for your patience. You have been here all day and, obviously, you are doing a wonderful job at the FBI because if you can spend your whole day with us rather than chasing drug traffickers or murderers or people who are engaged in other types of criminal activity in our country, and that is not to minimize this issue, this is probably an important issue, but not structured as we went about it today.
    You responded to a number of questions from the chairman which went to some degree the relationship of the investigation, and I want to clarify something. The FBI and the Task Force that you are participating in is not an investigation of Democratic financial campaign abuses, it is in regard to any illegalities related to financing of elections in the previous Federal election; is that correct?
    Mr. FREEH. That is a fair characterization.
    Mr. FATTAH. And it was the FBI, along with the Justice Department, that produced the investigation that led to the conviction, $6 million fine and house arrests of the vice-chair of the Dole campaign, is that correct, in Massachusetts, the gentleman from Aqua-Leisure, Mr. Fireman?
    Mr. FREEH. You are asking whether that was a Department of Justice investigation?
    Mr. FATTAH. Yes.
    Mr. FREEH. Yes, it was.
    Mr. FATTAH. The investigation of a company in Pennsylvania, my home State, that was just fined a multimillion-dollar fine and was involved in conduit payments of hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Dole campaign was also an investigation of the Department of Justice?
 Page 246       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. FREEH. Yes, sir.
    Mr. FATTAH. So even though the chairman questioned you about whether or not you had subpoenaed documents from the White House or subpoenaed documents from the DNC, his questioning may have led others to assume that somehow, all of the angels were Republicans and all of those who were involved in wrongdoing were Democrats. Your investigation, you are looking for wrongdoing anywhere?
    Mr. FREEH. Yes. I certainly didn't take his questions to mean that. We are looking for anybody, excuse me, who has committed any kind of violation of law and will look into it vigorously.
    Mr. FATTAH. Let me paraphrase his question and change them slightly. Had you received all of the documents that you subpoenaed from the DNC—and you answered that question. Have you subpoenaed documents from the RNC?
    Mr. FREEH. Well, I don't think I should get into discussions about whether or not——
    Mr. FATTAH. I agree with you, and since I do agree with you, Mr. Director, I wondered why you answered the chairman's question in that regard, because you seem to be going well beyond what normally would have been your response, which is the response you just gave me.
    Mr. FREEH. Well, I think he was comparing that situation to the committee's subpoenas and we were discussing that as a——
    Mr. FATTAH. Well, the committee is in a different mode. You might have noticed that this committee in all of the editorials from the newspapers that the chairman was quoting earlier have talked about this committee's partisan-leaning investigation, so I just want to separate the activities of the committee from the activities of an agency like the FBI, which has a very fine reputation, and I know with certainty that there are matters of impropriety and questions that need to be resolved having to do with both parties in both campaigns for the Presidency in the last election and as it relates to congressional elections in both 1996 and 1994, and I just want to give you an opportunity to put on the record the fact that Americans everywhere, Democrats and Republicans and Independents, none should sleep well tonight, that all matters are going to be investigated.
 Page 247       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. FREEH. The Task Force, absolutely correct, is looking at everything. We don't distinguish——
    Mr. LANTOS. If I might reclaim my time for a moment, I just would like to conclude on the question of leaks, Mr. Burton, that in a regular——
    Mr. FATTAH. Are you not going to give him a chance to finish?
    Mr. LANTOS. My time is running out, that is why.
    On November 26, 1997, our ranking member wrote a letter to you on another subject, and the concluding paragraph refers to the earlier letter, and I quote: ''I would like to remind you that you have yet to respond to my letter of September 4 asking you to investigate the facts underlying deposition testimony indicating that your staff leaked confidential committee records about this issue to the press.''
    So we really can't deal very effectively when the September letter is never responded to, and the November letter today, December 9, has not yet been responded to. Please go ahead and finish your answer.
    Mr. FREEH. We have a totally nonpartisan investigation. We don't distinguish along party lines or personality lines or whether it is an officeholder or nonofficeholder. Everything is open to inquiry.
    Mr. FATTAH. Thank you very much.
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Cox.
    Mr. COX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, again, Director Freeh.
    Because of your current position and because of your past experience as a Federal judge, as a prosecutor, and as a lawyer, and because you stated in your testimony that your disagreement with the Attorney General was about a matter of law, I would like to ask you about the independent counsel statute.
 Page 248       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The independent counsel statute is written in such fashion that after a preliminary investigation takes place, there either is or isn't an application to the three-judge panel for the appointment of an independent counsel. And the statute, section 592(c), makes an independent counsel, or at least an application for an independent counsel, mandatory for the Attorney General if, quote, there are reasonable grounds to believe further investigation is warranted, and that may or may not be the right copy of this.
    Do you have the law in front of you, section 592(c)? If not, I will give your counsel——
    Mr. FREEH. Yes, I believe I do.
    Mr. COX. And you are familiar with the independent counsel statute, of course.
    Mr. FREEH. Yes. If further investigation is warranted, and that the other requisites have been met.
    Mr. COX. So if there are ''reasonable grounds,'' in the language of the statute, ''if there are reasonable grounds to believe that further investigation is warranted,'' then there must be an application for an independent counsel; is that right?
    Mr. FREEH. To see if it is a covered person, yes, sir.
    Mr. COX. Now, the Vice President is a covered person, right?
    Mr. FREEH. Yes, he is.
    Mr. COX. And the Attorney General limited her preliminary investigation to those phone calls in his case; is that correct?
    Mr. FREEH. That was the—yes, that was the way she defined preliminary investigation.
    Mr. COX. She defined that narrowly, although the New York Times referred to it as using a matador's cape; the phone calls being a matador's cape to distract attention from the other more major matters involved here. That was the New York Times editorial view. But she defined it that way.
 Page 249       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The Vice President is a covered person and the matter being investigated was the phone calls. She conducted a preliminary investigation under the statute, and then she decided not to make application to the three-judge panel. This means under the statute that there are not reasonable grounds to believe further investigation is warranted; is that correct?
    Mr. FREEH. That is correct.
    Mr. COX. All right. So I take it you are not investigating it?
    Mr. FREEH. Well, if you look at the filings of the court as we discussed a moment ago, the filing to the court had to do with those facts and events, but not in a vacuum, those facts and events in relation to section 607. So I think it is a more limited inquiry than the one you have just stated.
    Mr. COX. But if there were reasonable grounds to investigate it, which I take it is a predicate for the FBI even now investigating it, then there would have to be an application to the three-judge panel for an independent counsel. I am correct on the law, am I not?
    Mr. FREEH. Reasonable grounds to investigate in specific furtherance or in specific support of a violation of 607. I think you have to put that qualifier in.
    Mr. COX. Well, I asked this because the Attorney General testified under oath before the House Judiciary Committee on October 15th that she wouldn't discontinue any investigation ''unless Director Freeh and I jointly approve that decision. We will not close the matter, again, I reiterate, unless Director Freeh and I sign off on it.'' She has, of course, closed it off on the Vice President. She did not decide to make an application for an independent counsel and you, of course, did not sign off on it; isn't that correct?
    Mr. FREEH. You know, rather than talking about a specific aspect of the recommendation, again, I would respectfully say that I recommended an independent counsel, but I really don't want to go into the specific bases and give you a legal analysis, either as a director or a former judge, on a statute that is not a statute that I am entitled to invoke in the facts that are you are giving me.
 Page 250       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. COX. I understand the reasons that you have advanced for not wishing to provide this committee with the memorandum that you wrote to the Attorney General recommending an independent counsel in this case, and stating your reasons for disagreeing with her position, but we read the newspapers, and the front page of the Wall Street Journal last Friday in the Washington Wire had this to say:

    The FBI Director's still-secret memo advocating an outside prosecutor claims the Democrats' diversion of party-building funds into campaign accounts may have constituted a conspiracy reaching into the White House. Among other possible crimes he cited misusing government resources and obstructing justice.

    Are you aware of any instance in which a sitting Attorney General has disagreed in writing with a sitting FBI Director about a possible conspiracy reaching into the White House?
    Mr. FREEH. It is a very carefully framed question. I do not know from my own experience of the dispute, legal dispute, or disagreement between an Attorney General and an FBI Director with respect to an independent counsel matter. That doesn't mean that there haven't in the past been such things and I am just not aware of them.
    Mr. COX. To your knowledge, this is the first time it has ever happened?
    Mr. FREEH. Certainly the first time that I am aware of it.
    Mr. COX. My time has expired. I thank you.
    Mr. FREEH. Yes.
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Sanders.
 Page 251       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SANDERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was glad to hear you earlier state that the purpose of this hearing is not to drive a wedge between Mr. Freeh and the Attorney General. Some would have thought otherwise, but I am glad to hear that that is not the case.
    Mr. Freeh, in the course of your work, is it unusual for serious people to have differences of opinion about important issues?
    Mr. FREEH. No, sir.
    Mr. SANDERS. Should it be something that the members of this committee should be shocked at, that you and the Attorney General might disagree about the wisdom or the appropriateness of having an independent counsel? Is that something that we should be really terribly shocked at?
    Mr. FREEH. I can't speak for the members of the committee.
    Mr. SANDERS. But in your course of doing business, serious people having serious disagreements is not unusual; is that correct?
    Mr. FREEH. In the course of my work, there are frequent matters of consensus. There are also matters, not infrequent matters, of disagreement by very serious, principled people for good reasons.
    Mr. SANDERS. And I gather from your discussion with Mr. Lantos that you think that this clash of ideas and honest differences of opinion is a good way to do business and that you do not want to see a climate created where there is not that clash of ideas?
    Mr. FREEH. No. Exactly. The assistant directors that I have, I expect that they will come to me, as they frequently do, and disagree with me, voice different opinions. If they didn't do that, in my view, they wouldn't be doing their job.
    Mr. SANDERS. In the letter that you and Janet Reno signed dated December 8th, let me read the next to the last paragraph. It says, and I quote,
 Page 252       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Finally, the Department has reviewed the precedents cited in your letter and in the accompanying Congressional Research Service memorandum. It is unprecedented for a Congressional committee to demand internal decisionmaking memorandums generated during an ongoing criminal investigation. None of the cited examples are to the contrary. In particular, the three prior matters that you highlighted,

you being Mr. Burton,

in your letter did not involve ongoing criminal investigations and, therefore, are not relevant precedents.

    Would you like to comment on that?
    Mr. FREEH. No more than to say that I think the facts of this case and the context of an ongoing criminal investigation is different from the cases cited in the letter.
    Mr. SANDERS. OK. Mr. Freeh, I gather you are learning more about campaign financing than you ever had hoped to learn about. What do you think about a system in which individuals can contribute huge sums of money to political parties? Does that make sense to you?
    Mr. FREEH. You know, I really don't have an opinion, and I don't think the FBI Director should have an opinion on that.
    Mr. SANDERS. OK. Does such a system make law enforcement somewhat difficult?
    Mr. FREEH. We enforce the laws that we have. If they are very clear and they have good case law and legislative history, it makes it easier. We enforce what we have, or we don't enforce it.
 Page 253       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SANDERS. Let me quote from your statement today. I quote you: ''I have stated many times my respect for Attorney General Reno. In the 4 1/4 years we have worked together, I have seen her bring nothing but integrity and honesty to the table.''
    What I am hearing is despite the fact that there may be a difference of opinion with her on this issue, you have enjoyed working with her; you respect her and look forward to continuing to work with her?
    Mr. FREEH. Yes, sir.
    Mr. SANDERS. OK. Mr. Chairman, I think that there has been an attempt today, which I frankly do not think is successful, has not been successful, in trying to take two dedicated public servants who disagree on an issue and suggest that the difference is, in fact, deeper than it is. Honest people within the Republican party, within the Democratic party, within the progressive community, disagree on issues. And I would just conclude, or yield my time to anyone who may want it, but conclude by applauding you for the work that you are doing, applauding Attorney General Reno for the work that she is doing, and look forward to the two of you continuing to work together as well as you have.
    Mr. BARRETT. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. SANDERS. Yield to Mr. Barrett.
    Mr. BARRETT. First of all, I want to compliment you for your patience being here today. You have obviously been very concerned about this. I also want to say that I often cite you as a role model for your career, but more importantly as a mature father of young children is something that I appreciate very much, although I can't understand how you get up in the morning and run with little kids at home. It is something I am trying to figure out how to do.
    Attorney General Reno said that she thought the Pendleton Act could be revised. Do you have an opinion on that?
 Page 254       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. FREEH. I do, but I don't think I should state it. I don't think it is the FBI Director's business as to what a statute should be instead of what it is. I mean, we enforce whatever laws you pass. I really don't think it is good for at least this FBI Director to be giving you his opinion on the statutes or how they should be changed. I have never done that on legislation except on technical areas that go to our capacity to perform our technical mission.
    Mr. BARRETT. Even technical changes, you don't want to comment on any technical changes?
    Mr. FREEH. No, sir.
    Mr. BARRETT. I think my time is up.
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired. We are about to entertain our last questioner of the day, and I really apologize, Director Freeh, for you having to come back tomorrow, but we will try to expedite it and get you out of here as quickly as possible.
    Mr. FREEH. Should I bring my lunch tomorrow?
    Mr. BURTON. Hopefully we will have you out of here by noon, but you might bring a snack.
    Mr. FREEH. OK.
    Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, you stated that we finished at 5:30; we have 10 more minutes.
    Mr. BURTON. I will accede to your wish. We will end on your side and start on ours in the morning; we will have one more on our side, because you are such a nice fellow.
    Mr. LANTOS. I appreciate it, sir.
    Mr. SHAYS. This has been a very interesting day to observe, and that is basically what a lot of us have done, and I think that we have had two extraordinarily gracious people come before the committee, both the Attorney General and yourself, and I have been intrigued by what I think is a difficult situation for both of you. But I am left with tremendous conflicts by hearing both of you, both in terms of your own comments, separately, and then comparing them.
 Page 255       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I wrestle with the fact that basically we have had over 65 people involved in this whole issue who have either taken the fifth amendment, asserting their fifth amendment privilege; 42, some of them have been former Government officials. We have had 12 witnesses who have left the country, and we have had 12 foreign witnesses who have refused to cooperate, and then we have had many people simply have a lapse of memory.
    This isn't a tiny issue. It does involve illegal fund-raising on both sides of the aisle, and ultimately I think this has to lead to campaign finance reform besides holding people accountable.
    The question that I am wrestling here is that I think that the way the Attorney General has read our campaign laws, she has made them almost meaningless, and now the way she is reading the independent counsel law, she has made it almost meaningless.
    When you talk about the fact that you have a tenure appointment, I get satisfied, and then you say, but the President can fire me any time. So help me reconcile those two things.
    Mr. FREEH. Well, they are both facts. We assume the fact that Congress gave the Director a 10-year term and a President signed that is that there was a decision made, a decision that certainly could be changed, but a decision was made that because of the uniquely sensitive requirements of investigations, that the chief investigator, not the chief law enforcement attorney, should have some insulation from political interference, which is what Senator Byrd said on the record.
    Mr. SHAYS. You also said he can fire you; is what you said?
    Mr. FREEH. Of course he can.
    Mr. SHAYS. So what insulation is that? I don't find that insulation, and that to me strikes at the very reason we are here today. He can fire you at any time. He can fire the Attorney General at any time. And when you say that you subpoenaed information from the White House and that more or less they have been cooperative, you would like it to have taken less time, it seems to me that you are subpoenaing information from the White House, they have information about activity in the White House and activity that may relate. Isn't that beginning to make one think that you trigger the independent counsel?
 Page 256       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. FREEH. Well, for those who were charged with the responsibility of triggering or not triggering it, I mean they have to take into consideration all of the relevant facts and circumstances. If that is one of them, they certainly have to consider that.
    Mr. SHAYS. But you have Ron Carey, the head of the Teamsters. We were supposed to protect the election. You have very serious allegations that the DNC can find ways to have people contribute to his campaign, and you have information that Teamsters clearly contributed to the DNC; in a sense, concern about conspiracy involving high Government officials. Mr. Carey, the Government is saying, can't run again, and it would seem to me that you would at least trigger, under the independent counsel statute, a preliminary investigation, and that hasn't happened. So I am really left very uncomfortable by this dialog.
    Furthermore, when you were asked from 1 to 10, Mr. Lantos is a very smart man, he didn't ask you to pin that number down, because I think he got the gist of it, but I would clearly gather from your testimony saying that you really believed in it, that it was closer to a 10 than a 5; is that accurate?
    Mr. FREEH. I wouldn't give it a number. I would say, as I said before, it was a recommendation that I firmly believe, and I would not have made it if it was not a strong one.
    Mr. SHAYS. So you firmly believed in that recommendation?
    Mr. FREEH. Yes, sir.
    Mr. SHAYS. The bottom line is you also did something that I think is unusual, and that is that you put in writing your strong conviction about this. That's a very, very—someday we are all going to see that document. It is in writing. Why did you put it in writing?
    Mr. FREEH. Because it was a serious enough issue that required a lot of thought, a lot of analysis, and I thought it should be done in a thorough and comprehensive way. It is not infrequent that I write memos similar to that.
 Page 257       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SHAYS. Well, but not about an issue dealing with the White House and potential corruption of the person who appointed you. That's not insignificant. I would just conclude by saying, it also is significant that someone in the Justice or in the FBI wanted us to know that you had it in writing and disagreed, and that is really the reason why we are here today. I thank you. I find your response to be very candid to both sides.
    I think I will also say to you that I have friends on both sides of the aisle who say that you, in fact, have been the best Director ever to be in the FBI, and that the FBI has taken many hits over the last few years, and you have unfortunately been having to take some of the repercussions of it, but high marks from many people that I know that respect you.
    Mr. FREEH. Thank you.
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Barrett.
    Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to go back a little bit to the meeting that involved the White House and I think it was Madeleine Albright, maybe I am wrong, following your trip to Egypt. There was a request, or there was a discussion of documents. Can you give us a little scenario of what the documents were going to be used for? I take it this is sort of hanging in the air that there may have been some nefarious purpose that these documents were given to the White House. Why were they given to the White House?
    Mr. FREEH. The request for the material was to prepare a briefing for the Secretary of State who was about to travel outside the United States.
    Mr. BARRETT. So it wasn't in any way to tip off anybody inside the White House of allegations pertaining to Chinese influence or anything like that; is that correct?
    Mr. FREEH. The request, as I understood it, was for the preparation of the Secretary of State. However, those documents and the information contained in those documents would have been disseminated through the White House Counsel's Office. That is that is where the request came from.
 Page 258       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BARRETT. And that is where your concern came from?
    Mr. FREEH. Yes, sir.
    Mr. BARRETT. When you voiced your concern, how did that become public? Did you do that publicly?
    Mr. FREEH. No, absolutely not. I don't know how it became public.
    Mr. BARRETT. Do you know whether it became public from someone at the FBI, or did it become public from someone at the White House?
    Mr. FREEH. I don't know.
    Mr. BARRETT. The second issue pertains to the memorandum. Again, this was a memorandum that you sent to the Attorney General, you have testified that you wrote it yourself, four copies, as I recall. Again, there was obviously a leak not of the document itself apparently, but of the information within the document.
    The reason I raise those two issues is, in all frankness, I expect politicians to leak documents. I get much more nervous when the leaks are coming in the context of law enforcement, because I expect a higher standard, and I think you have done an excellent job, so I am not criticizing you, but I am curious as to whether you are concerned where we have two incidents following upon each other quite closely where obviously we have a leak, and it concerns me.
    Mr. FREEH. I am very concerned about it, too. Unfortunately I wish those were the only two. I could cite you, if we had a couple of hours, many other instances where confidential criminal justice matters, confidential national security matters are finding their ways on to newspapers. It is the most frustrating thing about being in this job, and it is not just in this case. It is a horrible situation. It is one that I deplore. I have taken many steps internally to try to stop it, including telling people that they will be fired and prosecuted if I can find that. I conduct inquiry leaks by the dozens. Unfortunately, few of them are resolved. There is not a more frustrating part of this job in Washington, I can tell you, than the leaks that we routinely see.
 Page 259       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BARRETT. Well, I appreciate that, because again, I think that that is a bad sign, and I am not trying to be critical of you at all, but I think in law enforcement, and I don't care if you are a Democrat or Republican, I think we all would agree that law enforcement leaks are very a serious matter. So I appreciate your saying that. And I say that because I think that, frankly, it is fair game for the majority side if they have the information to raise the information.
    Mr. FREEH. I agree with that.
    Mr. BARRETT. But I don't think that it should be a cover-up situation within your agency, but I agree with the comments that you have made and the comments that the Attorney General made. If you write a memo and you cannot be confident that it is going to be private, you are going to be far less likely to do so.
    In terms of the number of memos you have written, can you give us more of a rundown on how often you use memorandum?
    Mr. FREEH. You know, on a weekly basis, I mean, I don't always write them myself. I didn't write this whole memorandum either, I reviewed it and revised it. I would say probably a couple a dozen a week that I sign that go to all different agencies of the Government, including the Attorney General and the Department of Justice.
    Mr. BARRETT. So although this was a serious matter, it was not extraordinary that you wrote a memorandum?
    Mr. FREEH. No.
    Mr. BARRETT. Also you have been asked, and the question, I think, was very heavily put to you, about whether you have ever had an investigation where there has been a disagreement between the U.S. Attorney General and the Director of the FBI that alleged a conspiracy against the White House, and obviously the answer is no, because it is sort—the question defines itself, and I think we should point that out. I think the same question could have been asked, have you ever had a disagreement when there is a President who has a cat named Socks, because there just hasn't been one. So I think that we have to be careful that when we talk about how unusual this is, what has happened between you and the Attorney General, because it is an unusual situation, not because something nefarious has happened.
 Page 260       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Do you think that Attorney General Reno bowed to political pressure in deciding not to have an independent prosecutor?
    Mr. FREEH. I think she made the best decision that she thought she could make under the facts and circumstances and the law as she had it. I have totally—total respect for her decision.
    Mr. BARRETT. So you don't think politics came into play at all?
    Mr. FREEH. No.
    Mr. BARRETT. Thank you. I have no further questions.
    Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The committee has written questions that it will submit and without objection, the record will remain open to receive answers to those questions.
    Regarding tomorrow's schedule, we will start at 10 a.m. We really appreciate the Director coming back. We will try to conclude his testimony by noon if it is at all possible so he can get home to his six kids?
    Mr. FREEH. Five and a half.
    Mr. BURTON. Five and a half children. After Director Freeh, we will then have our next witness. Thank you for your patience, Director Freeh. We stand in recess until 10 a.m. tomorrow.
    [Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.]

47–116 CC
1998

THE CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL ACT
 Page 261       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

VOLUME 1

HEARINGS

before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
AND OVERSIGHT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DECEMBER 9 AND 10, 1997

Serial No. 105–89

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

THE CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL ACT
VOLUME 1

 Page 262       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
THE CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL ACT
VOLUME 1

THE CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL ACT
VOLUME 1

THE CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL ACT
VOLUME 1

THE CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL ACT
VOLUME 1