(9:30 a.m.)

VOICE: Good morning.

MR. HOLDER: Good morning.

VOICE: Good morning.

QUESTION: Because of the -- Eric, we're told that the government has developed a strategy in the Singleton case, where a Federal decision appears to have gutted the government's ability to negotiate for testimony. Can you tell us something about that?

MR. HOLDER: Yes. We have decided to seek a rehearing en banc from the 10th Circuit. We are obviously concerned about the opinion. We are going to monitor any motions that might have been filed as a result of the opinion.

(Pause.)

MR. HOLDER: Just for the record, whose tape recorder was that?

(Laughter.)

VOICE: That was Bloomberg's.

(Laughter.)

MR. HOLDER: We are going to be filing for a hearing, a rehearing, en banc, of the 10th Circuit. We are concerned about the effect of the opinion, and respectfully disagree with the conclusion that that three-judge panel reached.

QUESTION: If the document stands, how might it affect the McVeigh and Nichols appeals?

MR. HOLDER: Hard to say. Hard to say. You know, you look at the opinion and you can see some problems that might crop up. But any opinion has to be looked at in light of the specific facts of the case that you are considering. So it's hard to say.

QUESTION: Eric, you said you are monitoring motions which may have been filed as a result of the opinion. Have you come up with any criminal cases that have been challenged because of the way the --

MR. HOLDER: To my knowledge, we have not received any word from anybody out in the 10th Circuit that any motions have been filed as yet. I think it's likely, though, that some might be filed. And that is why we have set up a process to monitor that situation.

QUESTION: Do you have any estimate, yourself, of how many cases could potentially be affected by this?

MR. HOLDER: Again, that is hard to say. I mean, if the decision is read very, very broadly, it could have a very wide-ranging impact. It goes to the way in which prosecutors at the Federal, State and local levels have conducted themselves for a good number of years. But, again, we respectfully feel that the opinion is wrong.

QUESTION: What is happening on the Secret Service deal -- where does it stand?

MR. HOLDER: We are in the process of discussing what we are going to do in light of the D.C. Circuit's opinion. No decision has been made. We have a relatively limited amount of time. We have 7 days in which to make up our minds if we want to seek a rehearing en banc. And so discussions are underway involving both Treasury and the Justice Departments, as to what position we will take.

QUESTION: Is there any doubt in your mind that if this goes to the Supreme Court and they hear the case that the Department would really lose badly on the question?

MR. HOLDER: I mean, it has always been our view, and we continue to have that view, that there is a limited protective function privilege. Again, we respectfully -- you know, we do not feel that the judges who have looked at it so far have reached the right conclusion. But we will be making a decision soon as to what we are going to do.

QUESTION: In the ruling, at the very end, the three-judge panel suggests that maybe you should go to Congress and ask Congress to adopt legislation on that. Is that an option that you are considering?

MR. HOLDER: There are a variety of things that we will consider. But, at this point, no decisions have really been reached.

QUESTION: Are you still negotiating with Starr's staff on a possible settlement?

MR. HOLDER: We continue to talk to Mr. Starr and to people at the Independent Counsel's office. It would be our hope, as we have said pretty consistently, that we would like to resolve this short of any litigation. That would still be our hope.

QUESTION: I understand that the Secret Service was served with a very broad subpoena for information the other day. Will the Department move to quash that subpoena or is that also part of the negotiating that is going on?

MR. HOLDER: I am not aware of that. That may have happened. I am just not aware of that.

QUESTION: Mr. Holder, are there going to be any changes in you all's border policy in light of the shootings in Texas the other day?

MR. HOLDER: Well, I mean, after tragic incidents like the one that happened in Texas, I think one always reviews operational policies. We still plan to be aggressive in our enforcement of the immigration laws. The Border Patrol's role has changed over the years. They are a major drug interdiction now for our government, and have put in harm's way as a result of that dedicated men and women who serve on the Border Patrol.

We will not back down. We are determined to do the job that the American people expect us to do on the border with regard to illegal immigration and also the flow of drugs.

QUESTION: What kind of things might you be looking at to change in light of this incident?

MR. HOLDER: I am not a law enforcement professional in that sense, but there are a whole variety of things I am sure that happen after those kinds of incidents that people in charge will be asking themselves, just to figure out ways in which you might better protect people who are doing those border patrol functions.

QUESTION: Eric, on the subject of drugs coming through Mexico, there has been a very disturbing report just today regarding the rehiring of quite a number of agents that Mr. Madrozo's Justice Division had fired because they were testing positive for cocaine and other drugs. In fact, it says results show that half of the dismissed officials were testing positive for cocaine. So here we are back into the law enforcement, and a vital part of Mexico's law enforcement are people who are using the drugs that they are supposed to be cleaning up in Mexico.

Does this disturb you? And can you go any further as to what has been worked out between the prosecution of those banks in Casablanca, those Mexican banks, and the possible prosecution of U.S. agents that were involved in Casablanca?

MR. HOLDER: Well, with regard to the first question, I do not know how the system down there works with regard to those kinds of employment matters -- whether or not there is an appeal that the Attorney General might be able to make in light of the order of that court to rehire them. I think that Attorney General Madrozo was courageous in taking the action that he did. We supported him then; we continue to support him now. He is a partner, a major partner of ours, in what I think is an increasingly successful effort in stopping the flow of drugs from Mexico.

If, however, those people were rehired, that would obviously be something that would be of concern to us, and we would have to look at the way in which we could interact with them.

QUESTION: How could Ms. Reno keep an agreement that she made with Mr. Madrozo on disclosure of various law enforcement operations that extend into Mexico if we know that a number of these agents that we would be dealing with are dirty?

MR. HOLDER: I mean, there are a variety of things that we can do. I mean, there are vetted units that we deal with and we have obviously a freer flow of information with those agencies and with those agents with whom we have confidence. So there are ways around, I think, virtually anything.

Our hope, however, is that the action, the courageous action, that Attorney General Madrozo took some months ago will ultimately be upheld.

QUESTION: And back to the matter of Casablanca, what is the status?

MR. HOLDER: We have been in conversations with our Mexican counterparts. It is our hope that we will be able to get the feelings that were generated by the Casablanca matter behind us so that we can continue on with what, as I said, is I think an increasingly effective partnership.

QUESTION: It has been a week or more since it was reported that Attorney General Reno had a recommendation on her desk to deal with Mrs. King's request for a new investigation of her husband's death. Is this being held up because of consultations with the White House?

MR. HOLDER: No, I would not say it is being held up. I would expect that you would probably hear something from the White House and from the Justice Department relatively soon. We have tried to consider all of our options, tried to take into account the request, the wishes of the King family, tried to come up with something that we think is within our power to do and would ultimately satisfy not only the King family but the American people. And it has just been a process that has taken some time.

QUESTION: Is this being jointly decided by the White House and the Justice Department?

MR. HOLDER: It certainly has been discussed with the White House.

QUESTION: It's part of the wishes of the King family that they have a deep distrust of the FBI, and that they are not so wild about the FBI taking part in this investigation --

MR. HOLDER: Well, in the conversations that I was a part of with the King family, they expressed concern about some unresolved questions. But I did not hear them being overly critical of the Bureau.

QUESTION: There have been discussions, as well, with the local prosecutor in Shelby County about their involvement in this?

MR. HOLDER: We have had a wide-ranging series of conversations with people. And yes, we have had conversations with the prosecutor.

QUESTION: Mr. Holder, for a long time there have been allegations of corruption inside the Customs Service that they are supposed to be allowing to bring drugs into the United States. Last night, on Prime Time, they have shown a wide report about it. Do you have any reaction to this report and these allegations of corruption within Customs?

MR. HOLDER: I did not see the report that was on Prime Time last night. I did not see that. We have obviously -- that would obviously be disturbing if found to be true. We have done a lot in terms of monitoring the work of our people on the border. Our Public Integrity Section has had an effort to go down and look at corruption allegations that have been raised against people. We have prosecuted a number of people, Americans, who have engaged in illicit activity.

So I have not seen that report, but that obviously would be disturbing.

QUESTION: In other words, the Mexican Government was also concerned about these. They believe that -- even if they do a lot to prevent the importation of drugs into the United States, maybe here on the border some corrupt personnel can allow them to come. Have you heard something about this in your conversations with the Mexican authorities?

MR. HOLDER: Well, I mean, the reality is that in order for this to work, we have to work together. We have to talk about reducing demand on our side of the border. We have to be concerned about law enforcement officials perhaps being overcome by the lure of money that drug dealers can dangle in front of them.

We have mutual concerns. We are in this together. And unless we work together, we will not ultimately solve that problem.

QUESTION: Eric, did you have a chance to read Bob Novak's column on the op-ed page of the Post this morning?

MR. HOLDER: Yes.

QUESTION: He said the Department's highly political Eric Holder is about to begin an investigation of Ken Starr based on the allegations in the interview by Stephen Brill in regard to the allegations in the Brill article, in regard to the complaints for Representative Conyers and Senator Torricelli. Has OPR actually begun its review of these complaints or are you still waiting on a decision from Judge Johnson?

MR. HOLDER: Well, I actually called the paper. And you should all understand that was a typo. It was meant to say highly regarded.

(Laughter.)

MR. HOLDER: But I did read the column today. There have been no decisions made as to what the Justice Department would do with any of those allegations. There are a whole variety of things we have to consider -- among them being what action, if any, Judge Johnson might take. But no decisions have been made by the Department as of yet.

QUESTION: Well, I understand all that. But there have been no decisions by Judge Johnson on the Rule 6(e) motion as well as the other motions from Monica Lewinsky's attorneys and -- well, as far as you know?

MR. HOLDER: As far as I know, that is the case. We would not have access to all of the things that are going on before Judge Johnson. Many of the things that are before Judge Johnson are grand jury-related matters that we are not a party to.

QUESTION: So if she did rule on this, you would not necessarily know about it, is what you are saying?

MR. HOLDER: That is possible, though there are ways in which we could seek to have the court or the parties make us aware of those kinds of issues.

QUESTION: The Argentine Government is doing an investigation, and some of their targets include IBM officials, and apparently they have made an extradition request. Can you give us an update on the status of that?

MR. HOLDER: I am not sure we have yet received a formal extradition request from Argentina. Once such a request is received, we would look at the applicable statutes and treaties that exist between us and the Argentines and then take the appropriate action.

QUESTION: Let me back up for just a second. Isn't there a jurisdictional problem here for any new Federal investigation? Because, after all, this was a State charge, a State crime?

MR. HOLDER: I am not sure I -- a jurisdictional?

QUESTION: Well, this was a State murder case. What would be the jurisdictional authority of the Federal Government to get into a new investigation at this time?

MR. HOLDER: Well, there are Federal bases to look into what are I guess otherwise considered State charges. For instance, if somebody is murdered, there is the possibility that civil rights laws can be used to look into a matter like that. A person's civil rights could also be said to have been violated if the person had been murdered.

QUESTION: Back to Denver and the appellate decision, could you speak to the -- I guess I cannot think of a better term -- the common sense argument raised by the court there -- that is, the common sense to the person in the street -- if the government buys testimony, in effect, by promising a lighter sentence or arguing for a lighter sentence from a witness. Why isn't this counter to truth gathering? Because the person obviously has an interest in telling what the government wants to hear.

MR. HOLDER: Well, I hope that is not the public perception, that what the government is doing is buying testimony by striking deals with people who testify on behalf of the government. I mean, what happens -- any responsible prosecutor always tries to substantiate that which any witness for the government is going to be saying. And especially that is the case in instances where the testimony is elicited after some kind of a deal is struck.

And so what prosecutors always strive to do is make sure that the testimony that is presented -- that you feel comfortable that the testimony you are presenting is in fact truthful testimony.

QUESTION: Are you satisfied that the safeguards in place now, federally and as far as any States that you know as well, are satisfactory?

MR. HOLDER: Satisfactory in what sense?

QUESTION: That they do guarantee that the government is not, in effect -- because there are checks and balances there -- that the government is not buying testimony.

MR. HOLDER: That is certainly the experience that I have had. I mean, as a Federal prosecutor, I am not obviously familiar with every State, every local prosecutor that goes on. But I think that is generally what prosecutors seek to do.

QUESTION: Some fugitives from Mexico -- I mean from the U.S. -- the authorities offer a reward for these fugitives. And sometimes U.S. nationals or foreign nationals go to Mexico and try to locate them, apprehend them, kidnap them, and take them back to the United States. What is the position of the Department of Justice in regards with these operations, which is illegal in Mexico? Like the case of Dr. -- this doctor that was involved in the assassination of the -- (off microphone) --

MR. HOLDER: We want to vigorously enforce our laws. At the same time, we want to make sure that any operations in which our government is engaged is respectful of Mexican law, Mexican sovereignty, as well. And that is why, again, I always stress that we have to have a partnership, to try to make sure that what we do is understood by our partners in Mexico and that we are respectful of Mexican law.

QUESTION: Any decision yet on whether the Department will appeal the D.C. Circuit's ruling in the Microsoft Windows 95 case, either a rehearing or an appeal to the Supreme Court?

MR. HOLDER: I do not believe we have reached -- made a final decision on that as yet.

QUESTION: Mr. Holder, on the Starr investigation, is the Justice Department saying that what the Secret Service agents might tell the Starr investigation is not relevant or just that they should not talk because of the presumptive protection function?

MR. HOLDER: The concern that we have expressed I think pretty consistently in two courts now is that if we pose these questions to Secret Service agents and Secret Service agents are put in a position where they have to answer questions -- and I am not sure if they have relevant information or not -- that it would tend to have the effect of making Presidents, future Presidents, push them -- these agents away, and increase the possibility that harm would then come to these future Presidents.

It is on that basis that we have sought to further this notion of a protective function privilege.

QUESTION: Has Justice asked the agents or the Secret Service whether or not what they might say is relevant to Ken Starr's investigation?

MR. HOLDER: We have worked with the Independent Counsel in trying to identify -- well, as they have identified people with whom they would like to talk, and tried to make those people available in the best way that we could so that information that they sought could be given to them.

QUESTION: Mr. Holder, do you have a comment on the motion to intervene by a committee to fight Microsoft in the antitrust case? Are you familiar with that?

MR. HOLDER: I am not familiar with that, no.

QUESTION: Mr. Holder, do you have any recommendations or decisions in the tobacco company investigation that you can share?

MR. HOLDER: There is nothing that I could comment publicly about today.

QUESTION: Can you give us any sense of the timing of the Justice Department's completing its review of the MCI/WorldComm merger?

MR. HOLDER: No, I do not have a sense of when that might be done. Bert might be able to get you some more information on that.

QUESTION: In Chicago, the trial of the three ADM executives starts in this criminal antitrust charges. A fourth executive, a Japanese by the name of Yamata, was indicted along with those three. He is in Japan. The Justice Department only says "no comment" when asked why he is not being extradited.

There is an extradition treaty. His lawyer says he will not appear at the trial this week. Does this send a message to criminals that they can go to Japan to escape justice?

MR. HOLDER: No, I would not think that that message should be one that goes out or that anyone should believe. People who are indicted in this country, we seek to bring them to justice wherever they are, consistent with treaties that we have with other nations. People should not feel that simply by placing themselves in other countries they will evade American justice. That should not be the message that goes out.

QUESTION: Why was there no effort to extradite Mr. Yamata?

MR. HOLDER: I would not want to comment much further than what I have just said.

QUESTION: Sir, do you think it is appropriate for the local Maryland prosecutor to be now investigating Linda Tripp as she's a star witness, if you will, in a Federal prosecution?

MR. HOLDER: I would not comment on that.

QUESTION: If you were the U.S. Attorney, would you want to talk to that local prosecutor at all and try and get them to give you more time to get her to back off a bit, or would you sort of let it just run?

MR. HOLDER: I would not comment on that one way or the other.

QUESTION: Mr. Holder, are you aware of the allegations in a book called "Through the Eyes of the Enemy," made by a gentleman named Stanislav Luna, who alleges he is a former Soviet intelligent agent, who says the Soviet military is gathering information in this country that would be used in case of a crisis or war? Especially it says that the Soviet -- that the Russian Government now is under the control of the Mafia. That is one of the major points.

Are you aware of this man's allegations?

MR. HOLDER: No. I have only seen, I guess, the headline in the clips this morning. I have not had even a chance to read the article. And I am going to suggest that perhaps we not share the clips with you all before the Thursday availability from now on.

(Laughter.)

MR. HOLDER: So, no, I am not familiar with those charges.

QUESTION: Okay. And then I have just one more.

There is an Iranian named Ahmed Rezi, who claims to be the son of a high-ranking general of the Red Guards in Iran, who is talking about very devious and ugly plans that -- past, present and future plans -- of the Mullah government in Iran. Have you heard anything about this particular defector, who went, I believe, to L.A.?

MR. HOLDER: That is not ringing any bells. I am not familiar with that one, I guess, at this point, either.

QUESTION: Mr. Holder, on that question, the article says that there are some new -- some Russian agents --

MR. HOLDER: The article I said I am not familiar with, that one?

QUESTION: Yes. But I wanted to ask you, are there any Russian agents being trained by U.S. authorities here now?

MR. HOLDER: Russian agents being trained by U.S. authorities? I do not know. To do what? I do not -- I mean, we have cooperative law enforcement agreements with a whole variety of nations to do very legitimate kinds of training. I do not know if there are any Russian police officers who are being trained by American police officers. I do not know.

QUESTION: Are there any Russian police agents being trained by American --

MR. HOLDER: That, I do not know. Bert, I am sure, could look. We could ask some questions of ICITAP, which is the organization within the Justice Department, or other organizations within the Department, to see if we have any ongoing training activities with the Russians. We can get you that information.

QUESTION: Mr. Holder, if Congress gets involved in creating a protective function privilege for the Secret Service, is Justice prepared to go to the Hill to testify in support of that type of legislation at this point?

MR. HOLDER: Well, I guess we would have to cross that bridge when we get to it. But we have been clear in our support of the existence of that privilege.

QUESTION: The President has announced his support for this Chafee bill dealing with parental responsibility and guns. But Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has made it clear that he does not want any gun control amendments attached to the juvenile crime legislation, which is what they were talking about. Isn't it possible that you are actually defeating efforts to pass that bill by insisting on gun control amendments?

MR. HOLDER: Well, I mean, it seems to me that is an appropriate place for the amendments to be placed. And I think that is certainly one of the thoughts that the administration has. Our larger concern, however, is with getting that legislation passed. We think it is reasonable. It is responsible, and will help the situation that we have faced in too many American communities in the recent past.

QUESTION: So you would be willing to drop the amendments if necessary?

MR. HOLDER: I am not saying that. We want to get them passed in the way -- you know, as expeditious a way that we possibly can. And the people at the White House, I am sure, will figure out a way to do that. Hopefully they will find a way to do that.

QUESTION: One of the figures in the campaign finance investigation was indicted this week on tax charges for -- her lawyer claims that it is just piling on and she has been hit with these tax charges just to get her to cooperate. In light of the experience in the Webb Hubble case, how do you respond to those allegations?

MR. HOLDER: We investigated the tax allegations involving Michau and felt that there was a basis to bring those charges. The cases are independent of one another. I mean, the campaign finance-related matters, the tax matter. And we think that the decisions to bring those tax charges were appropriate.

QUESTION: Eric, when Mike Vadis first took over the new National Infrastructure Protection Center, he said that they were working on developing guidelines for investigations in cyberspace. And he kind of indicated that it would be relatively soon when those guidelines were promulgated. Do you know if those guidelines have been put together, and whether they differ significantly from the guidelines that Department investigators and prosecutors use now?

MR. HOLDER: I am not sure where we stand on the development of any new guidelines. I would expect that generally the guidelines that we would develop in that area would be consistent with those that prosecutors have followed for any number of years. And yet there are different kinds of things we face in cybercrime, so that we have to come up with some that are sensitive in new situations that we face now.

QUESTION: Mr. Holder, I think most polls show that most Americans feel the Staff investigation has gone on too long and they want it to wind up quickly. Do you share those views, or would you say the investigation is on track?

MR. HOLDER: I am not familiar with the intricacies of the investigation. I know that public corruption investigations can take long periods of time. But beyond commenting on it that way, I do not know enough about the case to comment.

QUESTION: Mr. Holder, on the topic of Ken Starr's latest request, are there any discussions on whether to require him to hold press briefings on the record?

MR. HOLDER: Whether we have had conversations?

QUESTION: Yes, in the Department.

MR. HOLDER: No, we have had no conversations like that. And that would not be appropriate. I mean, that is for Mr. Starr to decide, how he and his office interact with the press. They are independent of the Justice Department.

VOICE: Final question.

QUESTION: Later today, Beth Nolan comes up before the Senate Judiciary Committee and I was wondering how you feel about that, yea or nay on her nomination?

MR. HOLDER: Well, she is an extremely qualified candidate. She has the requisite amount of legal abilities, independence, to serve as I think a great head of the Office of Legal Counsel. We expect that she will be confirmed. And she looks forward to answering all the questions that any of the Senators will pose. We hope that the hearing will go well for her, and we hope that the Senate will then quickly vote to confirm her after the -- that is a yes.

VOICE: All right. Thank you very much.

MR. HOLDER: Okay. Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 10:00 a.m., the press conference concluded.)