The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“LET JUSTICE PREVAIL” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H7908-H7909 on Sept. 25, 1997.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
LET JUSTICE PREVAIL
(Mr. BARR of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Madam Speaker, the difference between the Department of Justice of 1957 and 1997 could not be more starkly realized than looking at these tremendously important and positive images of a struggle for civil rights 40 years ago in which the United States Department of Justice was leading the way to uphold our laws, and the Department of Justice of 1997 which has become known as the stonewalling capital of the capital.
Madam Speaker, there are some of those that say because the Attorney General recently took the tiny step for the Department of Justice and that giant, giant tiny step for the Department of Justice, that we ought to say, wonderful, the Attorney General has decided to decide to decide whether to appoint a special prosecutor.
Madam Speaker, I join the New York Times, which, on September 14, called on the Attorney General to step aside and let justice prevail today as it did in 1957.
Madam Speaker, the New York Times editorial is as follows:
The Prosecutor Game
The torrent of disclosures of political fund-raising abuses by the Democrats last year has no doubt had a numbing effect on many Americans. But if ordinary citizens find it hard to keep track of the shady characters, bank transfers and memos suggesting that Vice President Gore and others knew what they say they did not know, the justice Department, has no excuse. Recent weeks have brought fresh evidence that the depart- ment's investigators are either lethargic or over their heads. Even worse, Attorney General Janet Reno's failure to seek an independent counsel to oversee the probe no longer looks like a principled assertion of faith in Justice's career staff. It looks like a political blocking operation to protect President Clinton and Mr. Gore from the vigorous investigation that would be aimed at any other officeholder who had received so much suspicious money.
Earlier this month, Ms. Reno was warned by Republicans in the House that ``the mood in Congress to remove you from office grows daily.'' That is a drastic step we are not quite ready to endorse. But the Congressional frustration is understandable in light of recent developments. It is hard to fathom, for example, why Justice Department investigators were so clearly taken by surprise when it turned out that the Democratic Party had engaged in a systematic scheme of juggling its books, transferring money from one account to another in possible violation of the law. Had the investigators been doing their job, they would have also discovered months ago that the basis for Ms. Reno's repeatedly saying that there were no credible allegations of wrongdoing against Vice President Al Gore was flat wrong.
After disclosures in the press that the Democrats mixed campaign accounts that are supposed to be rigidly separate, Ms. Reno abruptly announced that her department would actively consider asking for a special counsel to take over the case. But there really is no need for delay in recognizing the obvious. Moreover, it would be a political subterfuge to limit the special counsel to Mr. Gore. His boss has earned one, too.
The first order of business ought to be fixing responsibility for the Democrats' fund-raising abuses, not simply the shuffling of accounts but whether there were any quid pro quos for all those donors and whether anyone in a major responsibility knew of the laundering of money and illegal transfers of funds from foreign sources. Among the highest priorities, in addition, is determining whether Mr. Gore violated Federal laws by soliciting money from big donors from his office at the White House.
There may be a temptation among Democrats and others to suggest that bookkeeping violations are inconsequential. But that would be a fundamental misreading of the issue. The reasons go back to the reforms that followed the biggest political scandal in modern American history.
Watergate led to two historic changes in American politics. First was the establishment of a process in which the Attorney General may seek the appointment of a special prosecutor, which later became known as an independent counsel, to investigate cases against top Administration officials. In 1993 when the statute was renewed, Ms. Reno herself affirmed the importance of being able to turn to an outside counsel to avoid ``an inherent conflict of interest'' when the Attorney General, an appointee of the President, must oversee an investigation that could damage the Administration politically. She is burdened by that conflict today.
Watergate also produced limits on campaign contributions that were flagrantly violated last year. Since 1974, it has been illegal for an individual to contribute more than $1,000 to a Federal candidate per election or more than $20,000 per year to a political party for candidates election expenses. Individuals may not give more than $25,000 in such contributions a year for all candidates and parties put together. These strictly limited contributions that are used for direct candidate support are called ``hard money.'' Federal election law separates hard gifts from the unlimited
``soft money'' that can be given to the party for their operating and promotion efforts. Last week we learned that the Democratic National Committee routinely deposited soft money in its hard money or candidate accounts without informing the donors. Although some of the money was later shifted to other accounts, it is clear that the D.N.C. was casual about one of the law's most basic distinctions.
Ms. Reno's primary duty is to uphold the laws on the books. But her Democratic loyalty seems to flow toward those bearing endless legalistic explanations as to why the laws either do not mean what they say or can be ignored with impunity. She should step aside and let someone with a less partisan view of law enforcement take over the crucial task of investigating the White House money flow.
____________________
