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 applica-
tion 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 Presi-
dent 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, re-
quested that the Attorney General request the appoint-
ment of an independent counsel to investigate a number
of matters relating to the financing of campaigns in the
•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 re-
portedly 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 Representa-
tives 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 Fed-
eral election;
Whereas in testimony before the Committee on Governmental
Affairs of the Senate in 1993, the Attorney General ex-
pressed her support for the reauthorization of chapter 40
•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 execu-
tive branch officials are to be investigated by the Depart-
ment 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 con-
fidence 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 high-
level 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 relat-
ing 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 im-
plementation of the law in the past; (3) the political ap-
pointees who have served as the Attorney General’s lieu-
tenants; and (4) the Department of Justice’s ineffectual
investigation;
•HCON 183 IH
Whereas the Attorney General did not seek the application of
an independent counsel to investigate the matters re-
ferred to as Whitewater until the President publicly re-
quested 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 re-
jected by the Court charged with deciding whether expan-
sions 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 com-
plete immunity while in office from a civil action (con-
cerning 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, includ-
ing convicted felon Webster Hubbell, and Ron Klain, cur-
rent Chief of Staff to Vice President Gore, are close asso-
ciates 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-
•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 In-
vestigation assigned to handle the fundraising probe on
a full-time basis has been anemic, and the 11-month in-
vestigation, 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 immu-
nity 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 Sen-
ate subsequently voted 15 to 1 to overrule the Depart-
ment 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 inves-
tigation;
Whereas the Attorney General failed to report to the Na-
tional Security Adviser that she had learned that the
•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 administra-
tion 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 investiga-
tion 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, Sec-
retary 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 in-
vestigations 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 Presi-
dent, may have knowingly accepted foreign contributions,