Panel Sought Records of Nasdaq Probe : Inquiry: Justice Department refused, calling House Commerce Committee’s Aug. 9 letter demanding confidential information improper.

The chairman of the House Commerce Committee last summer demanded access to confidential investigative records in the Justice Department’s inquiry into alleged price-fixing on Nasdaq and an aide threatened to subpoena the records if the agency did not comply voluntarily, according to sources and letters obtained by The Times.

But Anne K. Bingaman, head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, rebuffed the request, calling it improper and “extraordinary” in a Sept. 5 reply to Rep. Thomas J. Bliley Jr. (R-Va.), the committee chairman.

Bingaman said the request could be viewed as an attempt to politically influence a pending investigation, and said complying with it would be a violation of longstanding Justice Department policy.

The policy prohibits giving members of Congress access to evidence in pending investigations. Bingaman also stated that the request could harm the investigation and derail efforts to persuade Nasdaq dealers to begin settlement talks.

Mike Collins, spokesman for the committee, denied that it tried to influence the investigation and said the request has been dropped.

Since last year, the Justice Department has been investigating whether Nasdaq dealers colluded to quote prices for Nasdaq stocks in a way that would ensure them wide profit margins.

The Justice Department has not made a formal decision whether to file civil antitrust charges. But, as reported, it has told dealers that it believes it has enough evidence to bring a case and urged them to negotiate a settlement.

With Republicans in the majority, the Commerce Committee in recent months has taken an openly sympathetic stance toward Wall Street firms. Many big Nasdaq dealers, which could face penalties if the Justice Department brings a case, deny any wrongdoing and contend that the investigation is unfounded.

But Collins said no one in the securities industry had asked Bliley to intervene in the Justice investigation. He said the request was made because the committee has legislative oversight responsibility for financial markets and had a legitimate interest in an investigation affecting one of the nation’s biggest stock markets. He said committee members had never authorized anyone to threaten Justice with a subpoena.

A Justice Department spokeswoman said Bingaman would not comment.

Bliley made the request in an Aug. 9 letter to Bingaman that sources said was drafted by David L. Cavicke, finance counsel to the Commerce Committee. The letter requested a briefing for the committee’s staff on “all aspects of the investigation” as well as access to “any documents they request.”

The sources said Cavicke followed up with telephone calls to Justice Department lawyers and threatened them with a subpoena from the committee unless they turned over some of the evidence in the case.

Cavicke did not return phone calls seeking comment. Collins said he did not know the details of Cavicke’s phone conversations with Justice.

Sources said Bingaman was angered by the initial request and by the additional pressure from Cavicke, and sought help in a phone call to Rep. John D. Dingell of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Commerce Committee.

They said the committee dropped the request after Dingell, in what was described as a friendly, collegial conversation, warned Bliley that the perceived threats by Cavicke could backfire.

Collins said Bliley and other Republicans on the committee had not been aware that Justice Department policy bans such requests.

“We do not have institutional memory as to how these matters were handled over the last 20 or 30 years,” he said. “Once the legitimate concerns of Anne Bingaman were made known to us, we pursued the matter no further.”

In her written reply to Bliley, Bingaman said: “We are anxious, as I know you are, to avoid even the appearance that political considerations have or may influence our decision” whether to file a case.

Lawyers for Nasdaq dealers, who are weighing whether to negotiate a settlement, have been eager to learn what evidence the Justice Department has. In interviews, however, lawyers for the dealers said they had not asked Bliley to intervene and did not know that he had made the request.

Although Bliley dropped the request to the Justice Department, the staff did demand and get a briefing from the Securities and Exchange Commission on its separate pending investigation of Nasdaq.

However, experts noted that the SEC--unlike the Justice Department--is directly supervised by Congress, and that the SEC has no policy banning such briefings. Sources said that during the briefing, committee staff members expressed the view that the SEC investigation is too broad. Collins said he did not know what took place during the SEC briefing but denied any attempt to influence the SEC investigation.

William McLucas, head of the SEC’s enforcement division, said he could not comment on anything related to a pending investigation.