Time: Sun Dec 14 17:20:52 1997 To: From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Opening Statement By Chairman Dan Burton] (fwd) Cc: Bcc: sls References: <snip> > > OPENING STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN DAN BURTON > Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Dec. 9, 1997 > > >Good morning. 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 that the Attorney General of the >United States and the Director of the FBI have disagreed so >publicly about such an important case. The campaign finance >investigation involves the President and the Vice President of >the United States. It involves their top aides. It involves their >major fundraisers. > >When our nation's two top law enforcement officers have such 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? > >THE TASK FORCE INVESTIGATION > >Several articles in the Washington Post in October, for instance, >spelled out some of the deep divisions between the FBI and >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 couldn't be more clear. The Justice >Department investigation has been underway 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? 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 didn't look at them. > >One of the Attorney General's primary advisors on this >investigation has been the head of the Public Integrity Section >-- Lee Radek (Ray-Dick). Mr. Radek has publicly called the >Independent Counsel Act "an insult." Is this the person that >should be advising the Attorney General on whether to 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. > >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 Justice Department files going >back to 1991, and 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 5. We were not given this information >until November 14 -- ten days later. This is absolutely >unacceptable conduct. > >THE LAW > >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 592 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 592 >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 1993: > >(Play video) "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." > >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 "covered person." Mr. >Meese used the same "conflict of interest" section of the bill >that we are today asking Attorney General Reno to use. > >What a marked contrast with the Clinton Administration. It has >been fourteen months since this foreign fundraising 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 you to the chart on the >screen which identified 19 Independent Counsels which have been >appointed over the years). > >While the Attorney General has cited her previous appointments of >Independent Counsels as evidence of her impartiality, she omits >that in the 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. > >BIPARTISAN CALLS FOR AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL > >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, it isn't >true. > >The need for an Independent Counsel to investigate the White >House has been obvious to many objective Democrats: > >Former President Jimmy Carter has called for an independent >counsel. So have Senator Moynihan, Senator Feingold, and Senator >Wellstone. Even Henry Waxman called for an independent counsel >last February. > >It doesn't stop there. Groups like Common Cause have been very >critical of Attorney General Reno. If that's not enough, just >pick up the New York Times. The Times is hardly an organ 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 (Hi - mon), 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: >"I served in seven administrations and I've never seen the >[Justice] department so dominated in the policy realm by the >White House." > >Mr. Heymann has 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're >wrong." > >FOCUS OF THE INVESTIGATION > >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? This >would certainly appear to pose a conflict. > >* JOHN HUANG the President's "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 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 fundraiser, President Clinton told her that >her brother had been his close friend for two 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 10 years. >When China's President Jiang Zemin visited Washington in October, >I asked the President 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. > >* 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 "thoroughly and impartially" >investigate allegations of wrongdoing by her Cabinet colleague >and his aides as well as senior White House officials in a >criminal investigation. The non-partisan Congressional Research >Service Legal Division has found no basis for the White House and >DOJ's privilege claims in these documents. (I will submit that >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 don't 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 later today or >tomorrow about the roadblocks thrown up by the Justice Department >that have hampered his important work. > >THE FREEH MEMO > >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. > >We have gone out of our way to address the concerns about grand >jury material in the memo. We have indicated that grand jury >material could be redacted. However, there was no attempt on the >Attorney General's part to meet us half-way. Ms. Reno said on >television on Sunday that there have been ongoing discussions >between her staff and our Committee. Unfortunately, this has not >been the case. We have had almost no contact from the Justice >Department since last Friday. > >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 even-handed 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 officers have such a fundamental disagreement over >the need 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 the Justice Department will >commit to working with us. > >DIRECTOR FREEH AND THE WHITE HOUSE > >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. > >Director Freeh has served this country as a federal prosecutor, a >Federal judge, and now as 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 anytime 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, they are going to ask for an independent counsel for >these bogus charges that have been raised against me. > >Let me say this to my good friends. I have no problem with that. >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 White House staffer and leader of the >Democratic National Committee. They are nothing more than part of >a smear campaign. > >I have nothing to fear from an independent counsel. 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 being 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. I agree. An Independent >Counsel is the best way for the Justice Department to proceed >with its responsibilities. In Congress, we will continue our >public review of these important matters so that the American >people are not kept in the dark. > > > > > Published in the Dec. 15, 1997 issue of The Washington Weekly > Copyright 1997 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) > Reposting permitted with this message intact > <snip>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail