Senator Specter, I would like to once again commend you for your hard work and diligence. I truly believe we would not be here today were it not for your perseverance in getting at the truth. I commend you for your persistence. You ran into a lot of roadblocks along the way. But those obstacles didn't keep you from getting the job done. You have a worthy goal: Constitutionally-mandated oversight of the executive branch.
Today's oversight activity requires an answer to this question: Who in the Justice Department makes decisions about the merits of cases involving allegations of misconduct by senior public officials?
The question arises because of a recommendation made by Mr. Labella. Mr. Labella wanted to appoint an Independent Counsel. Unfortunately, the big wheels at Justice overruled the merits of the case. They ignored the wisdom of career prosecutors. Some career prosecutors were so disgusted by this decision they quit. It looks like the Public Integrity Section at the Justice Department just dropped the ball.
It looks like Public Integrity ignored all the facts. It ignored the evidence. It ignored the advice of experts. It ignored the recommendations of career prosecutors and the FBI. This subcommittee has examined documents on Mr. Radek's decision. These documents suggest that Mr. Radek may have decided that the Labella memo posed a threat to Attorney General Reno's tenure.
Mr. Radek's concerns were also reported in the media. I hope this issue gets the scrutiny it deserves. It seems like Public Integrity needs a wake-up call. Public Integrity is supposed to be staffed by civil servants, not partisan politicians. In the past, I have dealt with the Public Integrity Section and its Chief, Mr. Radek.
I am pleased that Mr. Radek is here today. On May 1, 1997, I referred a campaign fund-raising matter to Justice. It concerned Mr. William Brandt, the head of a company in Chicago. The company invited banking institutions to a September 17, 1996, $10,000 per couple, Democratic fund-raising reception and dinner. It was held in Mr. Brandt's home. The invitation listed the Chairman of the National Bankruptcy Review as the guest of honor.
President Clinton attended this fundraiser. My staff received numerous calls from banking institutions. These were complaints. The callers objected to the suggestion that attendance was an opportunity to influence the Chairman's decision-making on pending issues. To their credit, some of the bankers declined the invitation. They declined on ethical grounds. I too became very concerned about the propriety of this event. It is illegal to link campaign contributions to pending legislation. It doesn't matter which political party is sponsoring the event.
There are stark contradictions in Mr. Brandt's explanations for this event. He told the subcommittee one thing. And he told his banking associates something entirely different. The difference in the two stories is like night and day. My staff has documents that prove Mr. Brandt attempted to exert inappropriate pressures. He exerted pressure by requiring attendance in exchange for support on bankruptcy issues. Those same issues were about to be considered by the National Bankruptcy Review Commission.
My staff provided Public Integrity solid evidence that Mr. Brandt may have made false statements to Congress in violation of federal law. The evidence given to Mr. Radek was backed up with exhibits and witness statements supporting the allegations. It took two years and four months to get an answer. It was a non-answer.
The non-answer, contained in a letter is dated August 9, 1999. According to press reports, this letter came two weeks after Mr. Brandt's company donated $20,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The Justice Department's response was not only long overdue.
It was also unresponsive. And it may have been tainted by campaign money. The two paragraph response from Mr. Radek simply said the allegations had no merit. Can you believe that? It took Justice two years and four months to tell me nothing?
Mr. Radek apparently came to this conclusion with no evidence. He didn't interview important witnesses. He didn't interview attendees at the fundraiser. It looks like Mr. Radek dropped the ball.
For the record, on March 22, 2000, I referred another case to Mr. Radek for investigation. This one involves the current Director of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Mr. John Keenan. Mr. Keenan directs a Federal Law Enforcement Agency. He is a Federal Law Enforcement Officer. Official records indicate that he personally returned 11 confiscated handguns to a convicted felon who was on supervised probation. Mr. Keenan's actions were in direct violation of a federal court order. They may have violated federal statutory law. Worst of all, they may have put the U.S. Probation Officer in harms way. These allegations were also referred to Mr. Radek's office by the Chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorneys Office in the Eastern District of Virginia.
I hope that Mr. Radek's response in that case will be uncharacteristic of our previous dealings. I expect to receive a prompt response. And I expect a thorough examination of the facts.
I hope the response is not dismissive of the facts referred by a U.S. Attorney as they apparently were in the case of the "Labella Memo." I also hope that a response from Public Integrity is not influenced by campaign money or political considerations. I hope Mr. Radek doesn't drop the ball again.
Senator Specter, my staff is in regular contact with line attorneys and the Inspector General community. These contacts pertain to numerous issues of misconduct involving high ranking government officials. They feel, as I do, that the Public Integrity Section at Justice does not have a good reputation. It has a reputation for ignoring the facts and disregarding evidence.
Like the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, it has become a burial ground for allegations of misconduct by senior officials. This reputation pre-dates the Clinton administration. The mission of the Public Integrity Section should be rigorous, impartial oversight, regardless of which party is in power. Politics of the day have no place within the Public Integrity Section.
Senator Specter, I thank you for your time and look forward to exercising oversight of the Public Integrity Section at Justice.