Congressional Record: April 4, 2000 (Senate)
Page S2066-S2069

 
                            OVERSIGHT POWER

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on a 
pending inquiry by the Judiciary subcommittee on oversight on the 
Department of Justice related to two subpoenas which were issued by the 
full Judiciary Committee to two individuals, one a former assistant 
U.S. attorney for the Central District of California and the second, a 
current employee at the Department of Justice, here in Washington, DC.
  The reasons for the request of the issuance of these subpoenas have 
been set out in the public record in a variety of places, but I thought 
it useful to summarize the background of the applicable law at this 
time because there is some public concern about exactly what is going 
on, why it is going on, and what are the precedents.
  Yesterday in the respected Legal Times, there was a balanced account 
of the request for the subpoenas and the issuance of the subpoenas, but 
the account, as is necessary in a relatively short publication, did not 
spell out in detail all of the background, which I propose to do at 
this moment. Some of what I say on the floor of the Senate will be 
supplemented by a memoranda which I will ask to be made a part of the 
Record.
  The essential facts are these: The oversight subcommittee is looking 
into the plea bargain entered in the case of a man named Dr. Peter Lee 
in 1998. Dr. Lee had confessed to two very serious instances of 
espionage. In 1985, Dr. Lee provided to the scientists of the People's 
Republic of China information about nuclear energy. In 1997, Dr. Lee 
again provided to scientists of the People's Republic of China 
information about detecting submarines.
  When the matter moved through the process between the assistant U.S. 
attorney in California to the Department of Justice, involving the Navy 
and the Department of Energy, there was a serious failure of 
communication.
  I interviewed the assistant U.S. attorney at length in Los Angeles on 
February 15, and that individual told me--and it is a part of the 
record--that he was denied permission to seek a serious charge against 
Dr. Lee but was authorized only to file a criminal complaint under 
section 1001 of 18 U.S.C., a false statement, but could not file 
serious charges of espionage.
  Records of the FBI and the Department of Defense, which our 
subcommittee has uncovered after laborious, painstaking efforts, 
disclose that the Department of Justice was prepared to authorize a 
prosecution under 794, which is a serious espionage statute which 
carries a penalty of up to life in prison or the death penalty. I am 
not suggesting the death penalty was appropriate or life in prison was 
appropriate, but that is what was provided. Those serious penalties are 
sometimes used as leverage to get cooperation or further information, 
something I saw in some detail when I was district attorney of 
Philadelphia.
  The assistant U.S. attorney says he knew nothing about that. The plea 
bargain was entered into before there was a damage assessment. After 
the damage assessment was completed, Department of Energy officials 
classified the disclosures in the secret category. The Navy Department 
wrote an ambiguous letter at one stage on November 14, 1997, a letter 
which was hard to understand because the damage assessment had not been 
made and, in fact, the Department of the Navy and the Department of 
Defense, did not make a damage assessment until requested to do so by 
the Judiciary oversight subcommittee.
  When that damage assessment was finally made, they came to the 
conclusion that it was, in fact, classified information. They disagreed 
with the Department of Energy's secret classification but did classify 
it at the confidential level.
  Through all of this sequence of events, the key official in the 
Department of Justice in Washington, DC, has declined to be 
interviewed. This individual is the key person who dealt with the 
assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles and who dealt with the 
Department of the Navy.
  This is, obviously, a matter of enormous importance. When one 
combines what was done with Dr. Peter Lee with what was done with Dr. 
Wen Ho Lee, who is now under indictment, where the Attorney General of 
the United States admitted she did not follow up on an FBI request for 
a warrant under the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act but delegated 
it to a subordinate who had no experience in the field. Attorney 
General Reno failed to follow up on it, and in fact the FBI let the 
matter lie dormant for 16 to 17 months, and when you add to that other 
plea bargains in the Department of Justice on campaign contributions 
involving John Huang, Charlie Trie, and Johnny Chung, and the 
technology transfer to the People's Republic of China over the 
objections of the Department of Justice which was conducting a criminal 
investigation, there is a great deal which needs to be done.

  Isolating and focusing for a moment just on the Dr. Peter Lee case, 
that is what we are looking at and that is why we have asked for the 
subpoenas.
  The arguments in the Judiciary Committee have raised the point that 
this is an unprecedented event, but that in fact is not true. The 
Congressional Research Service summarized this issue as follows, and I 
will be submitting a memorandum which has a fuller citation of 
authority:

       In the majority of instances reviewed, the testimony of 
     subordinate DOJ employees, such as line attorneys and FBI 
     field agents, was taken formally or informally, and included 
     detailed testimony about specific instances of the 
     Department's failure to prosecute alleged meritorious cases.

  This goes beyond closed cases but goes to cases which are pending and 
which are currently being investigated. We have seen a repeated effort 
by the Department of Justice, under Attorney General Reno, to use a 
pending investigation as a roadblock to providing congressional 
oversight, but in fact the cases are to the contrary.
  The authority for these issues goes back as far as Teapot Dome and 
extends as recently to last year with the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs of the Senate. In Teapot Dome, the select committee heard 
testimony from scores of present and former attorneys and agents of the 
Department of Justice. Some of the cases upon which testimony was 
offered were still open at the time.

[[Page S2067]]

  The investigation of white-collar crime in the oil industry, an 
investigation of the failure of the Department of Justice to 
effectively investigate and prosecute alleged crimes, took place in 
1979 when joint hearings were held by the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Power of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. At 
that time, a Department of Justice staff attorney testified in open 
session as to the reason for not going forward with a particular 
criminal prosecution.
  That is about what we are looking for here, why the prosecution did 
not go forward, but why they settled for an insufficient plea bargain 
which gave Dr. Lee no jail time but only community service, probation, 
and a fine. In that context, the Department of Justice asked for only a 
short period of incarceration. It is hard to understand why that would 
be done when there are documents from the FBI and the Department of 
Defense which say prosecution would be authorized for a penalty which 
carried life imprisonment or the death penalty.
  In the Rocky Flats investigation in 1992, the Subcommittee on 
Investigations and Oversight of the House Committee on Science, Space, 
and Technology took testimony from the U.S. attorney from the District 
of Colorado, an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Colorado, a 
Department of Justice line attorney, and an FBI field agent. According 
to Congressman Howard Wolpe, the Justice Department was initially 
uncooperative but finally agreed to the subcommittee's requests only 
after the subcommittee threatened to hold DOJ in contempt.
  In 1992, carrying through 1994, the House Subcommittee on Oversight 
and Investigations conducted an extensive investigation into the impact 
of Department of Justice activities on the effectiveness of the 
Environmental Protection Agency's criminal enforcement 
program. Overall, the subcommittee conducted detailed interviews with 
more than 40 current and former Justice Department officials concerning 
the management and operation of the Environmental Division.

  For months, Justice Department attorneys stalled on subcommittee 
requests to interview DOJ line attorneys and sought to deny the 
subcommittee access to numerous primary decisionmaking documents as 
well as documents prepared in response to the subcommittee's 
investigation.
  On June 9 of last year, David Ryan, a line attorney for the 
Department of Justice OIPR, Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, 
testified before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in response 
to a committee subpoena.
  On September 22 of last year, three FBI field agents----
  Mrs. BOXER. Would the Senator yield to me? I am so sorry to interrupt 
him, but I am confused because I thought we were supposed to be 
discussing the budget. We have Senators who want to talk about the 
budget.
  Does the Senator have a clue as to how long he is going to continue 
on this?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have an allocation of time from the 
manager, Senator Domenici, for as much time as I shall consume.
  Mrs. BOXER. I think under the rules we have to be speaking about the 
budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  Mr. SPECTER. Regular order, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Can I----
  Mr. SPECTER. Regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I remind the Senator from California, the 
Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. A parliamentary inquiry is not in order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not in order.
  Mrs. BOXER. OK.
  Mr. SPECTER. To respond to the inquiry of the Senator from 
California, I intend to speak for about 5 or 6 or 7 more minutes. As I 
understand the rules, if you have the floor, and if you have been 
allotted time, you can speak on any subject a Senator desires.
  As I was about to say, Mr. President, on September 22, 1999, three 
FBI agents testified before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee 
about the details of their investigation of Charlie Trie. Those 
individuals appeared under subpoena. There have been efforts to have 
the subcommittee stand down on some unspecified assurances from the 
Department of Justice that a way will be found to provide the 
subcommittee with the information it needs.
  That is not practical under these circumstances, where the specific 
subpoenaed Department of Justice employee was the key link between the 
assistant U.S. attorney from California and the Department of Defense. 
But I think it not irrelevant to comment about the failure of the 
Department of Justice to reply continually to requests for oversight 
from the Judiciary Committee.
  On July 15, 1998, I asked for the Attorney General's opinion as to 
whether there was ``specific and credible'' evidence of a legal 
violation when Mr. Karl Jackson testified that John Huang said within 
earshot of President William Clinton, ``elections cost money, lots and 
lots of money, and I am sure that every person in this room will want 
to support the reelection of President Clinton.''
  That was stated in the White House. The Attorney General responded 
that she would be ``happy to review it with the task force and get back 
to you,'' referring to me. She never did so.
  I will skip over the March 12, 1999, request, which I will have 
printed in the Record in a moment, and refer now to the May 15, 1999, 
Judiciary Committee hearing on oversight of the Department of Justice, 
where the Attorney General agreed to respond in writing as to whether 
there were any ongoing investigations as to Mr. Fowler and Mr. 
Sullivan. She did not do so.

  At the same time, in response to my questions, the Attorney General 
agreed to respond in writing as to her thoughts on the plea bargain of 
Peter Lee, specifically, the propriety of the sentence given the 
seriousness of the offense. Notwithstanding this commitment, the 
Attorney General did not respond, which has led to our very detailed 
inquiry in this matter.
  On June 8, 1999, in a closed hearing, in response to my questions, 
Attorney General Reno promised to write, No. 1, a report within a month 
on where the Department of Justice stood on prosecuting Wen Ho Lee, 
which was never done; a report on the Peter Lee plea bargain, which was 
never done; and details of the Johnny Chung plea, which was never done.
  For purposes of brevity, I will skip over requests which the Attorney 
General committed to and did not respond to on December 2, 1997, July 
10, 1998, July 23, 1998, and go to July 22, 1999, when I wrote to the 
Attorney General requesting all documents relating to the 1996 Federal 
election campaigns and had only a staff response which provided very 
little information.
  On September 29 of last year, I again wrote to the Attorney General, 
pursuant to the investigation by the Judiciary subcommittee, to request 
the 10 pieces of intelligence information mentioned in the DOJ 
Inspector General Special Report on the Handling of the FBI 
Intelligence Information Related to the Justice Department's Campaign 
Finance Investigation. Again, no response.
  When the Judiciary Committee was considering the subpoenas for the 
two individuals on March 23--just a couple of weeks ago--I was 
surprised, in the middle of the proceeding, to see the ranking Democrat 
on the Judiciary Committee start to read from a letter from the 
assistant attorney general of the Department of Justice.
  The letter showed a copy to Senator Hatch, who had not received a 
copy of the letter. The letter made a number of references to this 
Senator. I was more than a little surprised to find a letter would be 
written and used in that kind of an argument without the basic courtesy 
of supplying a copy of the letter to me. So, on March 24, I wrote to 
the Attorney General asking her if she thought it was appropriate for 
Assistant Attorney General Robinson not to send me a copy of the 
letter, even though I was a topic of the letter and it involved a 
matter before the Judiciary Committee where I was the principal moving 
party.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of a memorandum from my 
assistant, David Brog, dated today, concerning many requests of the 
Attorney General be printed in the Record.

[[Page S2068]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     To: Senator Specter.
     From: David Brog.
     Date: April 4, 2000.
     Re: Requests made to AG Reno.

                                Hearings

     July 15, 1998--Judiciary Committee Hearing--Oversight of the 
         Department of Justice
       You asked for the Attorney General's opinion as to whether 
     it was ``specific and credible'' evidence of a legal 
     violation when Mr. Karl Jackson testified that Mr. Huang said 
     with earshot of President Clinton, ``elections cost money, 
     lots and lots of money, and I am sure that every person in 
     this room will want to support the reelection of President 
     Clinton.'' The Attorney General responded that she would be 
     ``happy to review it with the task force and get back to 
     you.'' She did not do so.
     March 12, 1999--Judiciary Committee Hearing--Department of 
         Justice FY2000 Budget Oversight
       You requested that the Attorney General make available to 
     the Committee any writings, memoranda or documents which 
     ``deal with Mr. LaBella with respect to his recommendations 
     on independent counsel . . . or whether that issue came up in 
     any of the Department of Justice documents which led to the 
     appointment of Mr. Vega. Attorney General Reno responded that 
     she would be ``happy to furnish you anything that I can 
     appropriately furnish you on any matter relating to that.'' 
     The Attorney General did not follow up by furnishing 
     information or even to say that there was nothing she could 
     ``appropriately'' furnish.
       When you stated that Mr. LaBella was quoted as saying that 
     he did not even get a phone call from the Justice Department 
     that Mr. Vega was going to be nominated, the Attorney General 
     responded that it was her understanding that he did, but that 
     she would check and let you know. Notwithstanding this 
     commitment to respond, she did not do so.
     May 5, 1999--Judiciary Committee Hearing--Oversight of the 
         Department of Justice
       The Attorney General agreed to respond in writing as to 
     whether there were any ongoing investigations as to Mr. 
     Fowler and Mr. Sullivan. She did not do so.
       The Attorney General agreed to respond in writing as to her 
     thoughts on the plea bargain of Peter Lee, specifically the 
     propriety of the sentence given the seriousness of the 
     offense. Notwithstanding this commitment, the Attorney 
     General did not respond.
     June 8, 1999--Judiciary Committee Hearing--Closed Hearing
       In response to your questions, the Attorney General 
     promised to provide you with the following three things:
       1. A report within a month on where DoJ stood on 
     prosecuting WHL.
       2. A report on the Peter Lee plea bargain.
       3. Details of the Chung plea bargain.
       Notwithstanding this commitment, the Attorney General did 
     not provide any of these items.

                                Letters

     December 2, 1997
       You wrote to the Attorney General requesting that a copy of 
     the Freeh memorandum be made available to the Judiciary and 
     Governmental Affairs Committees. You received a response from 
     Attorney General Reno and Director Freeh on December 8 
     stating that they must decline your request.
     July 10, 1998
       You wrote to the Attorney General reiterating your request 
     from December 2, 1997, that a copy of the memorandum from FBI 
     Director Freeh recommending appointment of Independent 
     Counsel on campaign financing reform matters be made 
     available. No response.
     July 23, 1998
       You wrote to the Attorney General requesting a copy of the 
     LaBella report recommending Independent Counsel. No response.
     July 22, 1999
       You wrote to the Attorney General (Senator Hatch signed on) 
     requesting all documents in the Department's possession 
     relating to (1) the Department's investigation of illegal 
     activities in connection with the 1996 federal election 
     campaigns, and (2) the Department's investigation of the 
     transfer to China of information relating to the U.S. nuclear 
     program. DOJ staff responded by providing very little 
     information.
     September 9, 1999
       Together with Senators Hatch and Torricelli, you wrote to 
     the Attorney General regarding the redactions in the 
     transcript of the June 8 closed session hearing. The Attorney 
     General did not respond to you, but instead met separately 
     with Senators Hatch and Leahy on the issue.
     September 29, 1999
       You wrote to the Attorney General to request the ten pieces 
     of intelligence information mentioned in the United States 
     Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General Special 
     Report on the Handling of FBI Intelligence Information 
     Related to the Justice Department's Campaign Finance 
     Investigation (July, 1999). You further requested any 
     analysis available to the Department of Justice related to 
     the validity of the information and its sustainability for 
     use in a prosecution or relevance to a plea agreement. No 
     response.
     September 29, 1999
       You wrote a follow-up letter to the Attorney General 
     regarding the documents you requested on July 22, 1999. 
     Again, no response.
     March 15, 2000
       Your counsel, David Brog, was invited to DOJ offices to 
     review the partially unredacted LaBella memo which had 
     already been reviewed by other members of Congress. When he 
     arrived, he was informed that he could not review, the memo, 
     since the new head of the Campaign Finance Task Force had to 
     review it in order to see if further redactions were 
     necessary in light of some ongoing cases.
     March 24, 2000
       You wrote to the Attorney General regarding a letter from 
     Assistant Attorney General James Robinson which was sent to 
     Senator Leahy in time for the Judiciary Committee executive 
     business meeting on March 23. You asked her for her view of 
     whether it was proper for Mr. Robinson not to send you a copy 
     of the letter even though you were a topic of the letter. No 
     response.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full 
text of the Memorandum on the Senate's Oversight Power Regarding 
Subordinate DOJ Employees and Open DOJ Cases be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Memorandum on the Senate's Oversight Power Regarding Subordinate DOJ 
                        Employees and Open Cases

       1. Congress has broad authority to hear testimony from 
     subordinate DOJ employees and to obtain information regarding 
     open DOJ cases.
       Congress has broad authority to conduct oversight of the 
     Executive Branch, including the Department of Justice and the 
     FBI. This authority includes the ability to obtain testimony 
     and documents relating to open DOJ cases, and to take 
     testimony from subordinate DOJ employees such as line 
     attorneys and investigators who have direct knowledge of 
     relevant cases. Congressional oversight authority is 
     succinctly set forth in a recent Congressional Research 
     Service analysis:

       ``[A] review of congressional investigations that have 
     implicated DOJ or DOJ investigations over the past 70 years 
     from the Palmer Raids and Teapot Dome to Watergate and 
     through Iran-Contra and Rocky Flats, demonstrates that DOJ 
     has been consistently obliged to submit to congressional 
     oversight, regardless of whether litigation is pending, so 
     that Congress is not delayed unduly in investigating 
     misfeasance, malfeasance, or maladministration in DOJ or 
     elsewhere. A number of these inquiries spawned seminal 
     Supreme Court rulings that today provide the legal foundation 
     for the broad congressional power of inquiry. All were 
     contentious and involved Executive claims that committee 
     demands for agency documents and testimony were precluded on 
     the basis of constitutional or common law privilege or 
     policy.
       ``In the majority of instances reviewed, the testimony of 
     subordinate DOJ employees, such as line attorneys and FBI 
     field agents, was taken formally or informally, and included 
     detailed testimony about specific instances of the 
     Department's failure to prosecute alleged meritorious cases. 
     In all instances, investigating committees were provided with 
     documents respecting open or closed cases that included 
     prosecutorial memoranda, FBI investigative reports, summaries 
     of FBI interviews, memoranda and correspondence prepared 
     during the pendency of cases, confidential instructions 
     outlining the procedures or guidelines to be followed for 
     undercover operations and the surveillance and arrests of 
     suspects, and documents presented to grand juries not 
     protected from disclosure by Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules 
     of Criminal Procedure, among other similar ``sensitive'' 
     materials. Congressional Research Report,''--
     Investgative Oversight: An Introduction to the Practice 
     and Procedure of Congressional Inquiry pp. 23-24 (April 7, 
     1995).
       2. Examples of prior investigations in which Congress has 
     heard testimony from subordinate DOJ employees and/or 
     obtained information regarding open DOJ cases.
     1. Teapot Dome--An Investigation of the Failure of the DOJ to 
         Prosecute Alleged Meritorious Cases
       Beginning in 1924, a Senate Select Committee conducted an 
     investigation of ``charges of misfeasance and nonfeasance in 
     the Department of Justice'' in failing to prosecute 
     individuals involved in the Teapot Dome scandal. The Select 
     Committee heard testimony from scores of present and former 
     attorneys and agents of the Department of Justice and the 
     FBI, who offered detailed testimony about specific instances 
     of the Department's failure to prosecute alleged meritorious 
     cases. Some of the cases upon which testimony was offered 
     were still open at the time. The Committee also obtained 
     access to Department documentation, including prosecutorial 
     memoranda, on a wide range of matters.
     2. Investigation of FBI Domestic Intelligence Operations
       Beginning in 1975, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on 
     Civil and Constitutional Rights held hearings on FBI domestic 
     intelligence operations. At the request of the

[[Page S2069]]

     Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the General Accounting 
     Office began a review of FBI operations in this area. In an 
     attempt to analyze current FBI practices, the GAO chose ten 
     FBI offices involved in varying level of domestic 
     intelligence activity, and randomly selected 899 cases in 
     these offices to review. FBI agents prepared a summary of the 
     information contained in the files of each of the selected 
     cases. These summaries described the information that led to 
     opening the investigation, methods and sources of collecting 
     information for the case, instructions from FBI headquarters, 
     and a brief summary of each document in the file. After 
     reviewing the summaries, GAO staff held interviews with 
     the FBI agents involved with the cases, as well as the 
     agents who prepared the summaries. GAO later did a follow 
     up investigation in which it reviewed an additional 319 
     cases and held interviews with the agents involved with 
     these cases.
     3. While Collar Crime in the Oil Industry--An Investigation 
         of the Failure of the DOJ to Effectively Investigate and 
         Prosecute Alleged Crimes
       In 1979, joint hearings were held by the Subcommittee on 
     Energy and Power of the House Committee on Interstate and 
     Foreign Commerce and the Subcommittee on Crime of the House 
     Judiciary Committee to conduct an inquiry into allegations of 
     fraudulent pricing of fuel in the oil industry and the 
     failure of the Department of Energy and the Department of 
     Justice to effectively investigate and prosecute alleged 
     criminality. A DOJ staff attorney testified in open session 
     as to the reason for not going forward with a particular 
     criminal prosecution. Although a civil prosecution of the 
     same matter was then pending, DOJ agreed to supply the 
     committee with documents leading to the decision not to 
     prosecute.
     4. Rocky Flats--A Review of a DOJ Plea Bargain
       In 1992, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 
     of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 
     commenced a review of the plea bargain settlement by the 
     Department of Justice of the government's investigation and 
     prosecution of environmental crimes committed by Rockwell 
     International Corporation in its capacity as manager of the 
     Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Facility. The Subcommittee took 
     testimony from the United States Attorney for the District of 
     Colorado, an assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of 
     Colorado, a Department of Justice line attorney and an FBI 
     field agent. It further received voluminous FBI field 
     investigative reports and interview summaries. According to 
     Subcommittee Chairman Howard Wolpe, the Justice Department 
     was not initially cooperative and agreed to the 
     Subcommittee's requests only after the Subcommittee 
     threatened to hold DOJ witnesses in contempt:

       ``Our investigation was impeded by restrictions imposed by 
     the U.S. Department of Justice. All of the witnesses, upon 
     written instructions from the acting assistant attorney 
     general for the criminal division which were approved by the 
     Attorney General, refused to answer questions concerning 
     internal deliberations in which decisions were made about the 
     investigation and prosecution of Rockwell, the Department of 
     Energy and their employees.''--Statement of Chairman Wolpe, 
     October 5, 1992.

       On September 23, the Subcommittee unanimously authorized 
     Chairman Wolpe to send a letter to President Bush asking him 
     either to assert executive privilege for the information that 
     the Justice Department directed the witnesses to withhold, or 
     to direct those witnesses to answer such questions. After 
     failing to receive an adequate answer from either the White 
     House or the Justice Department, the Subcommittee declared 
     its intention to hold the U.S. Attorney for the District of 
     Colorado in contempt. At this point, the Department changed 
     course and accepted an agreement which provided that:

       ``The Department will issue a new instruction letter to all 
     personnel who have received prior instructions directing them 
     not to answer questions concerning deliberative privilege. 
     The new letter will inform them that they must answer all 
     Subcommittee questions fully and truthfully, including those 
     which relate to internal deliberations.'' Ibid.
     5. DOJ Influence on the EPA--A Review of DOJ Environmental 
         Crime Prosecutions
       From 1992 through 1994, the House Subcommittee on Oversight 
     and Investigations conducted an extensive investigation into 
     the impact of Department of Justice activities on the 
     effectiveness of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 
     criminal enforcement program. Overall, the Subcommittee 
     conducted detailed interviews with more than 40 current and 
     former Justice Department officials concerning the management 
     and operation of the Environmental Division and 
     environmental criminal enforcement policies. The 
     Subcommittee also reviewed hundreds of internal DOJ 
     documents on these matters. As the Subcommittee wrote in 
     its report:

       ``One of the most significant accomplishments of the 
     Subcommittee's environmental crimes investigation was its 
     reinforcement of a number of important historical precedents 
     regarding Congressional oversight of the Justice Department. 
     The Subcommittee withstood repeated efforts to resist the 
     exercise of its Constitutional responsibilities to oversee 
     Executive Branch agencies. For months, Justice Department 
     officials stalled on Subcommittee requests to interview DOJ 
     line attorney and sought to deny Subcommittee access to 
     numerous primary decision-making documents as well as 
     documents prepared in response to the Subcommittee's 
     investigation. However, the Subcommittee ultimately obtained 
     the interviews and comments it deemed necessary to fulfill 
     its oversight duties in a responsible manner.''--Damaging 
     Disarray--Organizational Breakdown and Reform in the Justice 
     Department's Environmental Crimes Program, a staff report 
     prepared for the use of the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
     Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the 
     U.S. House of Representatives. December, 1994.
     6. Governmental Affairs Hearing re Wen Ho Lee
       On June 9, 1999, Mr. David Ryan, a line attorney at the DOJ 
     OIPR (Office of Intelligence Policy and Review) testified 
     before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee about 
     details of the Department's handling of the Wen Ho Lee 
     investigation. Mr. Ryan appeared in response to a Committee 
     subpoena.
     7. Governmental Affairs Hearing re Charlie Trie
       On September 22, 1999, three FBI line agents--Roberta 
     Parker, Daniel Wehr, and Kevin Sheridan, testified before the 
     Senate Governmental Affairs Committee about the details of 
     their investigation into Charlie Trie. These agents appeared 
     in response to Committee subpoenas.

  Mr. SPECTER. We are in the midst of some very serious oversight on 
the Department of Justice. We have seen the Wen Ho Lee case bungled 
badly by the Department of Justice and the chances for successful 
prosecution placed in real jeopardy. We have seen very serious 
espionage violations by Dr. Peter Lee involving nuclear power and 
involving detection of submarines, to which there were confessions, 
where a plea bargain was entered into without having a damage 
assessment and without having the trial attorney notified as to his 
authority to pursue very serious charges.
  It is plain, in the context of what has gone on with the Department 
of Justice over the past many years in their refusal to provide 
information for oversight, even after the requests were made, and even 
after the Attorney General personally agreed to the request, that the 
only way to get to the bottom of it is to issue subpoenas and insist on 
congressional oversight so we can find out why these travesties of 
justice were carried out.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

                          ____________________