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.
“WHY DO DEMOCRATS WANT TO BLOCK INVESTIGATION?” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H2595-H2596 on April 29, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
WHY DO DEMOCRATS WANT TO BLOCK INVESTIGATION?
(Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, last week 19 House Democrats on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight voted in lock step to block immunity to four essential witnesses. Over 90 people in this investigation have taken the fifth amendment or fled the country, and the only way the Americans can get to the truth of it is to give immunity to some of the witnesses who have not fled the country. So why have the Democrats voted against it? Why do they want to block the investigation?
Here is the letter from the Justice Department saying they had no problems given Irene Wu, Nancy Lee and Larry Wong immunity if they testify, but 19 House Democrats have blocked it. Why are they trying to obstruct justice? Maybe because of this.
The President's own attorney general has appointed six independent counsels on this particular administration, and these independent counsels have brought results: the Whitewater investigation, eleven guilty pleas, three convictions, two indictments pending; the Espy investigation, six guilty pleas, six convictions, three indictments pending; the Cisneros investigation, one guilty plea, six indictments pending.
Maybe that is why the 19 House Democrats voted lock step to keep the truth from the American people and obstruct justice in their own partisan way.
Department of Justice,
Washington, DC., April 16, 1998.Mr. Richard D. Bennett,Chief Counsel, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Bennett: I am writing in response to your letter of April 7, 1998, requesting the Department of Justice's position on the granting of immunity to Larry Wong. The Department of Justice has no opposition to the Committee granting immunity to Mr. Wong. We appreciate greatly your coordinating with us on this matter.
Sincerely,
Mark M. Richard,
Acting AssistantAttorney General.
____
Department of Justice,
Washington, DC., April 16, 1998.Mr. Richard D. Bennett,Chief Counsel, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Bennett: I am writing in response to your letter of April 7, 1998, requesting the Department of Justice's position on the granting of immunity to Nancy Lee. The Department of Justice has no opposition to the Committee granting immunity to Ms. Lee. We appreciate greatly your coordinating with us on this matter.
Sincerely,
Mark M. Richard,
Acting AssistantAttorney General.
____
Department of Justice,
Washington, DC., April 16, 1998.Mr. Richard D. Bennett,Chief Counsel, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Bennett: I am writing in response to your letter of April 7, 1998, requesting the Department of Justice's position on the granting of immunity to Irene Wu. The Department of Justice has no opposition to the Committee granting immunity to Ms. Wu. We appreciate greatly your coordinating with us on this matter.
Sincerely,
Mark M. Richard,
Acting AssistantAttorney General.
____________________
