IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 183

Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the failure of Attorney

General Janet Reno to seek application for an independent counsel to

investigate a number of matters relating to the financing of campaigns

in the 1996 Federal election, including the conduct of President Clinton

and Vice President Gore.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 31, 1997

Mr. SALMON (for himself and Mr. SCARBOROUGH) submitted the following

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the

failure of Attorney General Janet Reno to seek application for an independent counsel to investigate a number

of matters relating to the financing of campaigns in

the 1996 Federal election, including the conduct of President Clinton and Vice President Gore.

Whereas the majority of the members of the Committee on

the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, in letters

dated March 12, 1997, and September 3, 1997, requested that the Attorney General request the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate a number

of matters relating to the financing of campaigns in the
2

•HCON 183 IH

1996 Federal election, including the conduct of President

Clinton and Vice President Gore;

Whereas the majority of the members of the Committee on

the Judiciary of the Senate, in a letter dated March 13,

1997, requested that the Attorney General request the

appointment of an independent counsel to investigate a

number of matters relating to the financing of campaigns

in the 1996 Federal election, including the conduct of the

President and the Vice President;

Whereas the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,

Louis Freeh, has reportedly called for the appointment of

an independent counsel to investigate matters related to

the financing of campaigns in the 1996 Federal election;

Whereas some officials at the Department of Justice have reportedly called for the appointment of an independent

counsel to investigate matters related to the financing of

campaigns in the 1996 Federal election;

Whereas former Democratic President of the United States,

Jimmy Carter, has stated that an independent counsel

should be appointed;

Whereas Common Cause has called for the appointment of an

independent counsel;

Whereas the Attorney General has denied the requests of the

Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate to request the appointment of an

independent counsel to investigate a number of matters

relating to the financing of campaigns in the 1996 Federal election;

Whereas in testimony before the Committee on Governmental

Affairs of the Senate in 1993, the Attorney General expressed her support for the reauthorization of chapter 40
3

•HCON 183 IH

of title 28, United States Code, and expressed support

for requesting an independent counsel when there is an

actual conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict,

stating that: ‘‘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. The

Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President.

. . . It is absolutely essential for the public to have confidence in the system, and you cannot do that when there

is a conflict or an appearance of conflict in the person

who is in effect the chief prosecutor. . . . The [statute]

was designed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety

in the consideration of allegations of misconduct by highlevel executive branch officials and to prevent . . . actual

or perceived conflicts of interest.’’;

Whereas consistent with the Attorney General’s testimony, an

independent counsel should be appointed where there is

even the appearance of a conflict of interest;

Whereas the Attorney General forces both an actual and an

appearance of a conflict of interest in the matters relating to the financing of campaigns in the 1996 Federal

election, indicated, among other things, by: (1) the fact,

as the Attorney General pointed out in her testimony,

that she serves at the pleasure of the President; (2) the

political considerations that may have influenced the implementation of the law in the past; (3) the political appointees who have served as the Attorney General’s lieutenants; and (4) the Department of Justice’s ineffectual

investigation;
4

•HCON 183 IH

Whereas the Attorney General did not seek the application of

an independent counsel to investigate the matters referred to as Whitewater until the President publicly requested the appointment of an independent counsel;

Whereas the Attorney General refused to seek an extension

of the authority for the independent counsel investigating

former Secretary of Agriculture Michael Espy (who has

been indicted on bribery-related charges)—a position rejected by the Court charged with deciding whether expansions of the authority of appointed independent counsels

is warranted;

Whereas the United States Supreme Court in Clinton v.

Jones rejected by a vote of 9-to-0 the Attorney General’s

position that the Constitution affords the President complete immunity while in office from a civil action (concerning unwanted sexual advances) before he took office;

Whereas the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari

for Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum (No. 96–4108,

Eighth Circuit) in which the court held that the Attorney

General’s position that notes taken by White House aides

concerning matters related to Whitewater were protected

by executive privilege, attorney-client privilege, and the

attorney work product doctrine;

Whereas former top advisers to the Attorney General, including convicted felon Webster Hubbell, and Ron Klain, current Chief of Staff to Vice President Gore, are close associates of the President and Vice President;

Whereas critical information concerning the investigations

continues to be uncovered, not by the 120 lawyers and

investigators the Attorney General has assigned from the

Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Inves-
5

•HCON 183 IH

tigation to handle this matter, but by members of the

media, particularly, Bob Woodward of the Washington

Post;

Whereas the work product of the 120 Federal agents from

the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation assigned to handle the fundraising probe on

a full-time basis has been anemic, and the 11-month investigation, which has more resources devoted to it than

any other criminal case in the Department of Justice, has

not resulted in a single conviction related to the 1996

election;

Whereas earlier this year the Attorney General stated that

one key reason she did not seek an appointment for an

independent counsel to investigate the Vice President’s

86 White House fundraising calls was that the calls were

for soft money;

Whereas it has since been learned through media reports and

documentary evidence that much of the money the Vice

President solicited was deposited in hard money accounts;

Whereas the Department of Justice refused to grant immunity from prosecution to four nuns involved in a 1996

fundraiser at a Buddhist Temple attended by the Vice

President;

Whereas the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate subsequently voted 15 to 1 to overrule the Department of Justice and to grant immunity to the nuns;

Whereas key witnesses to the probe have fled the country

while the Department of Justice has pursued its investigation;

Whereas the Attorney General failed to report to the National Security Adviser that she had learned that the
6

•HCON 183 IH

Federal Bureau of Investigation turned up evidence that

the Chinese Government may have attempted to influence

the 1996 Federal election;

Whereas the Attorney General herself has said that she was

‘‘mad’’ about the White House delivering evidence (now

approaching almost 200 videotapes of Clinton administration fundraising events) one day after she submitted a

letter (October 3) to the Committee on the Judiciary of

the House of Representatives, explaining that she would

not conduct a preliminary investigation of the President’s

participation in potentially illegal campaign activities—a

decision she subsequently was forced to reverse;

Whereas chapter 40 of title 28, United States Code, requires

the Attorney General to conduct a preliminary investigation whenever ‘‘specific’’ and ‘‘credible’’ evidence exists

that a covered person ‘‘may have violated any Federal

criminal law’’;

Whereas the following officials implicated in the fundraising

investigation are covered persons under the independent

counsel law: President Clinton, Vice President Gore, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, former Secretary of

Energy Hazel O’Leary, former White House Deputy

Chief of Staff Harold Ickes, and the former head of the

Democratic National Committee, Don Fowler;

Whereas the Attorney General has not opened preliminary investigations under chapter 40 of title 28, United States

Code, in a number of instances where ‘‘specific’’ and

‘‘credible’’ evidence exists that covered officials violated

Federal law;

Whereas high administration officials, including the President, may have knowingly accepted foreign contributions,
7

•HCON 183 IH

and have engaged in a scheme to launder foreign money

through straw donors in violation of sections

437g(d)(1)(A) and 441e of title 2, United States Code;

Whereas $3,000,000 in campaign donations raised primarily

by three fundraisers close to the President (John Huang,

Charlie Trie, and Johnny Chung) was returned because

it came illegally from foreign contributors;

Whereas the Democratic National Committee has returned

$325,000 raised by Mr. Trie, and the President’s legal

defense fund has announced that it has returned about

$800,000 in illegal contributions he collected;

Whereas the Democratic National Committee, only after the

election and only after a public outcry, has returned

about half of the $3,400,000 raised by Mr. Huang;

Whereas individuals associated with raising foreign funds, including Charlie Trie, Thai businesswoman Pauline

Kanchanalak, the head of the Indonesian Lippo Group,

James Riady, and gardener Arief Wiriadinata and his

wife have fled the country to avoid interrogation and possible prosecution;

Whereas Charlie Trie, now hiding in Beijing, China, said to

Tom Brokow of NBC news that Senate investigators

‘‘will never find me’’;

Whereas James Riady has reportedly fled to Jakarta, Indonesia;

Whereas Pauline Kanchanalak has reportedly fled to Thailand;

Whereas Arief and Soraya Wiriadinata have reportedly fled

to Indonesia;
8

•HCON 183 IH

Whereas close associates of the President implicated in the

plot to raise illegal foreign money, including John Huang

and Johnny Chung, have refused to cooperate with investigators, asserting the 5th amendment right against selfincrimination;

Whereas the President knew that some of the attendees at

his fundraising coffees were individuals (foreigners) ineligible to contribute;

Whereas the President on at least 2 occasions thanked audiences for contributing to his campaign at fundraisers he

knew foreigners attended;

Whereas at a February 19, 1996, fundraising dinner at the

Hay-Adams Hotel the President said: ‘‘It was quite a

wonderful thing for me to come here on what we in the

United States now call President’s Day . . . I thank you

for your financial contributions’’, which is specific and

credible evidence that a Federal law barring raising campaign funds from foreign citizens may have been violated;

Whereas at one fundraising event the President urged foreigners to ‘‘go back home, reach out to people who are

not here’’;

Whereas at a 1996 fundraiser President Clinton told an audience of fewer than 50 people, ‘‘how much I appreciate

your support,’’ acknowledging ‘‘those who have come

from other countries to be with us tonight’’;

Whereas a videotape of a campaign fundraiser revealed that

a participant, Arief Wiriadinata—whose campaign contributions totaling $450,000 were ultimately returned reportedly because of concerns the funds were laundered—

informed the President that ‘‘James Riady sent me’’
9

•HCON 183 IH

which may have violated sections 437g(d)(1)(A) and 441f

of title 2, United States Code;

Whereas there appears to have been an administration-wide

conspiracy to subvert Federal campaign and bribery laws;

Whereas it is illegal for ‘‘soft money’’ contributions to directly assist the campaign of a candidate for Federal office;

Whereas the President and his subordinates may have violated section 441a of title 2, United States Code, prohibiting Presidential campaigns receiving Federal money

from raising private funds in excess of the limit placed

on Presidential campaigns that receive Federal money;

Whereas former Presidential advisor Dick Morris stated in

his book, ‘‘Beyond the Oval Office’’, that the President

used advertisements paid for with soft money to advance

his reelection campaign, stating that: ‘‘Every line of every

ad came under his informed, critical, and often meddlesome gaze. Every ad was his ad.’’;

Whereas Dick Morris, in a February 1996 memorandum to

the President, stated that, ‘‘If Dole is nominated, we

need no additional [hard] money for media before May

28 since we can attack Dole with DNC soft money’’;

Whereas the President noted on a May 21, 1996, tape that

television advertisements funded with soft money—money

supposed to be used for party building, not for individual

candidates—boosted his chances for reelection: ‘‘The fact

that we’ve been able to finance this long running constant television campaign... where we’re always able to

frame the issues... has been central to the position I

now enjoy in the polls.’’;
10

•HCON 183 IH

Whereas the President stated in a December 1995 tape that:

‘‘We realized we could run these ads through the Democratic Party, which means we could raise money in

$20,000, $50,000, and $100,000 blocks. We don’t have

to do it all in $1,000 donations.’’;

Whereas section 201 of title 18, United States Code, prohibits Federal officials from receiving any benefit in return for any official action;

Whereas Democratic National Committee trustee Johnny

Chung commented on the solicitation in the White House

by the First Lady’s aides: ‘‘I see the White House is like

a subway: You have to put in coins to open the gates.’’;

Whereas the former head of the Democratic National Committee, Donald Fowler, placed a phone call to the Central

Intelligence Agency at the request of a major donor,

international fugitive Roger Tamraz, which involved constructing a $1,000,000,000 pipeline through the hostile

state, Iran;

Whereas Paul Eckstein, a Democratic activist and long-time

friend, colleague, and campaign manager of the Secretary

of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, testified under oath that

Babbitt told him that former Deputy White House Chief

of Staff Harold Ickes had pressured Babbitt to make a

decision on an application for a gaming operation in

favor of tribes that opposed the application, and that

made large contributions to the Clinton-Gore re-election

campaign;

Whereas the application was rejected the same day Babbitt

told Eckstein that Mr. Ickes ordered the decision;

Whereas Eckstein also testified that ‘‘[Babbitt] asked me,

‘Do you have any idea how much money these people
11

•HCON 183 IH

have given?’ I said, ‘I have no idea.’ He said, ‘Well, a

half a million dollars.’ ’’;

Whereas Federal District Court Judge Barbara Crabb, a

Carter appointee, after reviewing summaries of memos

the White House has been withholding on this matter

concluded that ‘‘there is considerable evidence that suggests that improper political pressure may have influenced agency decision making.’’;

Whereas there are several other instances where evidence

suggests administration policy may have changed as a result of campaign contributions, including: (1) permitting

100,000 Chinese assault weapons into the country, despite the administration’s public support for the assault

weapons ban law, after meeting with, and receiving contributions allegedly associated with, a Chinese arms merchant; (2) the President issuing a waiver allowing continued aid to Paraguay, after the State Department recommended cutting off aid because of the country’s failure

to stop drug smuggling, in close proximity to receiving

contributions from an individual with close ties to the

Government of Paraguay; (3) a reversal of the administration’s position on labor and immigration issues in

Guam after receiving large contributions from Guam

businessmen supporting this change; (4) providing a

former employee of the Lippo Group (a multibillion dollar

real estate and financial conglomerate based in Indonesia), John Huang, with a position at the Department

of Commerce and a top secret security clearance without

a full background check—a security clearance Mr. Huang

retained long after he severed ties with the Department

of Commerce—which permitted him, according to the

Commerce Department, 109 meetings at which classified
12

•HCON 183 IH

information might have been discussed; and (5) the

President’s decision to designate 1,700,000 million acres

of Utah wilderness as a national monument, which halted

plans to mine the world’s largest deposit of clean burning

super compliance coal when the second largest deposit of

this type of coal lies in Indonesia, raising concerns that

the Lippo Group influenced the President’s decision;

Whereas on several occasions the administration has failed to

turn over documents or other materials subpoenaed by

the Committees of the House of Representatives and the

Senate investigating the 1996 Federal election, and may

be violating chapter 73 of title 18, United States Code,

relating to the obstruction of justice;

Whereas videotapes of fundraisers requested by congressional

committees were not produced for months, and might be

incomplete or altered;

Whereas every copy of the film of the Vice President’s illegal

fundraiser at a Buddhist temple has disappeared;

Whereas chapter 40 of title 28, United States Code, sets a

low threshold in favor of the Attorney General requesting

an independent counsel in matters involving White House

or other ‘‘covered’’ officials in which the Attorney General has requested a preliminary investigation under

chapter 40 of title 28, United States Code;

Whereas the standard for the Attorney General to appoint an

independent counsel after initiating a preliminary investigation is very low;

Whereas section 592 of title 28 United States Code, states

that ‘‘The Attorney General shall apply’’ for ‘‘an appointment of an independent counsel if—the Attorney General, upon completion of a preliminary investigation
13

•HCON 183 IH

under this chapter, determines that there are reasonable

grounds to believe that further investigation is warranted’’ or the period of the preliminary investigation as

set forth in the chapter has elapsed and the Attorney

General has not notified the court that ‘‘no reasonable

grounds’’ exist to terminate the investigation;

Whereas there are several significant restrictions on the Attorney General in conducting a preliminary investigation,

which makes the low threshold in favor of the Attorney

General requesting an independent counsel necessary;

Whereas the Attorney General is statutorily prohibited from

convening grand juries, entering into plea bargains,

granting immunity, or issuing subpoenas during a preliminary investigation begun under section 591(c) of title

28, United States Code;

Whereas the Attorney General is limited to questioning witnesses who voluntarily agree to interviews and reviewing

documents voluntarily produced;

Whereas, pursuant to chapter 40 of title 28, United States

Code, the Attorney General on October 3 opened a preliminary investigation into telephone campaign solicitations made by Vice President Gore at the White House,

and on October 14 she opened a preliminary investigation

into telephone campaign solicitations made by President

Clinton;

Whereas the Attorney General has ordered a preliminary investigation under chapter 40 of title 28, United States

Code, to investigate charges that former Secretary of Energy Hazel O’Leary solicited a contribution for a favored

charity via a Democratic National Committee trustee,

Johnny Chung, in return for granting a meeting;
14

•HCON 183 IH

Whereas sufficient evidence exists for the Attorney General to

request the appointment of an independent counsel concerning the fundraising calls of the President and the

Vice President;

Whereas section 607 of title 18, United States Code, makes

it unlawful for ‘‘any person to solicit . . . any contribution . . . in any room or building occupied in the discharge

of official duties.’’;

Whereas former White House counsel Abner Mikva cautioned

White House employees in 1995—before many of the

questionable calls may have been made by the President

and the Vice President from the White House—that ‘‘no

fundraising phone calls or mail may emanate from the

White House.’’;

Whereas the Vice President has admitted making numerous

fundraising calls from the White House;

Whereas the President has not challenged documentary evidence that proves he made fundraising calls from the

White House, including the Oval Office; and

Whereas Richard Jenrette, who contributed $50,000 to the

Democratic National Committee, reportedly wrote a letter

after receiving a call from the President stating: ‘‘You

[President Clinton] wanted to raise $2,000,000 from 40

friends—by my Wall Street math, this comes out to

$50,000 that you requested from each.’’: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) deplores the refusal of the Attorney General

4 to seek application for an independent counsel, pur-
15

•HCON 183 IH

1 suant to chapter 40 of title 28, United States Code,

2 concerning the 1996 election campaign of President

3 William Jefferson Clinton and Vice President Albert

4 Gore;

5 (2) condemns the continued control of the in6 vestigation by the Attorney General, despite her ac7 tual conflict of interest in investigating, among oth8 ers, the President at whose pleasure she serves, and

9 the Vice President;

10 (3) denounces the lackluster investigation run

11 by the Attorney General, which has allowed key wit12 nesses and suspects to flee the country and impor13 tant documentary materials to disappear or be with14 held improperly and has given those involved a year

15 to coordinate their stories;

16 (4) laments the loss of confidence of the Amer17 ican people in their Department of Justice, engen18 dered by this investigation, which continues to un19 dermine the notion of one standard of justice for all

20 Americans, regardless of position;

21 (5) instructs the Attorney General to faithfully

22 uphold and execute the laws she has sworn to up23 hold, specifically by seeking application for an inde24 pendent counsel to investigate the 1996 Clinton25 Gore campaign, without further wrongful delay; and
16

•HCON 183 IH

1 (6) instructs the President to request that the

2 Attorney General seek application for an independ3 ent counsel to investigate the 1996 Clinton-Gore

4 campaign, without further wrongful delay.

Æ