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