When you're incapable of action, call for an investigation

By JESSE E. TODD JR.

Newport News Daily Press

Perhaps Congress should demand that the attorney general call for appointment of an independent counsel to investigate the attorney general for her failure to call for appointment of an independent counsel to investigate President Clinton's fund raising in the 1996 campaign.

Or if that proves to be ineffective, perhaps a remedy can be found in a constitutional amendment. An amendment could be written that would compel the attorney general to call for appointment of an independent counsel whenever a majority in Congress requested such an appointment.

These thoughts occurred to me as I was reading about Attorney General Janet Reno going before a Senate committee last week to endorse a constitutional amendment to protect the rights of victims of violent crime. Reno has been subjected to the wrath of some Republicans for her refusal to call for an independent prosecutor to probe Clinton's fund raising. They are threatening to bring her before Congress to explain herself, under oath.

But Reno's endorsement of the victims' rights amendment brought some respite from the criticism. Nobody in his or her right mind could be against victims' rights, which in today's political climate translates as no politician in his or her right mind could be against a constitutional amendment protecting the rights of victims of violent crime. Perhaps if anyone does oppose such an amendment, an independent counsel should be appointed to investigate.

When it comes to proposing constitutional amendments or proposing investigations, we have a first-rate Congress. Couldn't ask for a better group of people. They can't balance the budget, but first things first.

Efforts to amend

This year, efforts to amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget, term limits for legislators and a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to raise taxes have already failed. The fact that Congress is better at proposing amendments than it is at actually approving such proposals is a relief.

Some lawmakers want to amend the Constitution to make English the nation's official language and to permit voluntary prayer in school. Then there's the ever-popular amendment to outlaw desecration of the flag. Thanks to the wisdom of the founding fathers, amending the Constitution is a difficult process, one that requires something close to national consensus.

Calling for an investigation of somebody or something is much easier. Even if Congress can't bully Reno into appointing an independent prosecutor whenever it wants one, the lawmakers can always run their own probes. The attention now being given campaign financing begs the question of why, if the laws are so weak, doesn't Congress toughen them up. Why, if there are so many loopholes, doesn't Congress close them?

Last week, on April 15, when income taxes were due, the House voted 412-0 in favor of a resolution declaring that "American families currently pay too much of their hard-earned money in taxes."

One can only weep at the exercise of such courage. I don't suppose there was an accompanying resolution stating that "American families currently receive way too much in government services," or that "American families now receive more in government services than they're willing to pay for."

Better yet, Congress could pass a resolution saying that "American families currently pay too much of their hard-earned money in taxes because Congress has the wrong priorities."

Then the lawmakers could ask for an independent prosecutor to investigate.

Knight-Ridder/Tribune Information Services