On the recordSeptember 30, 1997
we should be very clear on what this resolution says. It forthrightly demands that the United States attorney do whatever he thinks he ought to do. Now, I did not realize that we had become the paymasters of the U.S. Government. Apparently this is kind of a bed check on the U.S. Attorney. It demands, it does not recommend, it demands, that he do whatever is appropriate. I guess, if that is all the majority has to do with its time, that may be a better way to take up time than others, but I think we ought to vote against the resolution anyway. In the first place, it is kind of a silly precedent to set; not a bad precedent, but a silly one, and understand, that is what the resolution does. It demands that he do what he thinks is appropriate. I suppose we could offer an amendment that we demand that he not do what he thinks is inappropriate, and we might also demand that if he is undecided, that he make up his mind. I mean, why pull any punches. I also, however, want to argue for letting the U.S. Attorney make the determination that they should not go forward. This has been a day. I started this morning, and three times today I have seen the Republican Party repudiate what used to be conservative legal doctrines. In 1983, William French Smith, the United States Attorney General under Ronald Reagan, said, "No, Congress, you cannot tell me to prosecute a contempt citation.…
Source
govinfo.gov




