[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 28, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S716-S719]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 THE GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AND THE 1996 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, as everyone knows, the Governmental 
Affairs Committee has begun an investigation into foreign campaign 
contributions and fundraising activities of the 1996 Presidential 
campaign. I believe that it is appropriate at the outset to set forth 
exactly what we were about, to discuss the committee's jurisdiction, 
the scope of its investigation, its purpose, and what principles we 
will apply in resolving the issues that will face us. The reasons to 
discuss this now at this time are several.
  First, we who are on the committee and in the Congress need to remind 
ourselves of these basics so we may keep our focus in the days ahead.
  Second, the American people need to understand the nature and purpose 
of our work in order that they will respect the process and the results 
of our efforts.
  Third, it is necessary to respond to some of the questions in the 
media and elsewhere as to the committee's role and purpose.
  Mr. President, my own analysis of these issues is just that; it's my 
own analysis. It is certainly subject to other views by other people. 
However, I do believe that there are certain principles that apply to 
our endeavor that can be gleaned from the Constitution, from the rules 
of the U.S. Senate, from court interpretations and, hopefully, from 
common sense in applying the lessons learned from the successes and 
failures of other committee investigations.
  Mr. President, the granting of the legislative power to Congress in 
article I of the Constitution includes the power to investigate. As the 
Supreme Court held 70 years ago, ``A legislative body cannot legislate 
wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the 
conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and 
where the legislative body does not possess the requisite information--
which not infrequently is true--recourse must be had to others who do 
possess it.'' So long as an investigation addresses issues that can be 
the subject of legislation, the investigation is constitutionally 
permissible. Some of the most important inquiries the Congress has 
conducted in the past two centuries have involved the role of money in 
politics and its effect on policy: the Credit Mobilier scandal of the 
1870's; an investigation of corporate campaign contributions in the 
1912 campaign, at which Theodore Roosevelt testified concerning his own 
campaign; and, of course, the investigation of the 1972 Presidential 
campaign.
  Congress' powers to investigate broadly encompasses all areas of the 
operation of the Federal Government, as well as flaws in the electoral 
system that makes the Government accountable to the American people. As 
Chief Justice Warren stated, the investigatory power ``encompasses 
inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as 
proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in 
our social, economic, or political system for the purpose of enabling 
the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of 
the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency, or waste.''
  Indeed, President Woodrow Wilson wrote that, ``Unless Congress have 
and use every means of acquainting itself with the facts and the 
disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country 
must be helpless to learn how it is being served. * * *'' Then he went 
on to say, ``The informing function of Congress should be preferred 
even to its legislative function. * * * The only really self-governing 
people is that people which discusses and interrogates its 
administration.''
  Although every committee in this body exercises oversight 
jurisdiction, the full range of the Senate's informing functions is 
granted to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Its 
jurisdiction includes the effectiveness of the operations of all 
branches of Government, including misfeasance, corruption, and 
conflicts of interest. It is broad enough to include Presidential 
campaigns and even congressional campaigns if they are relevant to and 
reflect upon the way our Government currently operates. No other 
committee has within its investigatory authority the entire range of 
the Governmental Affairs Committee's jurisdiction, which is as broad as 
the Constitution permits.
  The investigation we are now undertaking is neither a criminal 
investigation nor a seminar on campaign finance reform, although, it 
involves elements of both. Based on the information before us at this 
time, it is an inquiry into illegal or improper campaign finance 
activities in the 1996 Presidential campaign and related activities. 
This means, however, that any facts that may have occurred before the 
1996 campaign that are relevant to or shed light upon that campaign or 
the operation of our Government may also be subject to our inquiry. 
Such a scope will necessarily involve examining our current campaign 
spending laws and how they operate.
  Now, certainly, our work will include any improper activities by 
Republicans, Democrats, or other political partisans. It is of extreme 
importance that our investigation and our hearings be perceived by the 
American people as being fair and evenhanded. This does not mean that 
we must strain to create some false balance or that we have some sort 
of party quota system. It simply means letting the chips fall where 
they may. We are investigating activities here, not political parties.
  While no one should be shut off for partisan advantage, we must have 
a sense of priorities based upon the seriousness of the activities or 
allegations

[[Page S717]]

that come to our attention. Otherwise, we will be at this much longer 
than anyone will want us to be. Neither I nor anyone else can determine 
at the outset all of the activities or areas that we will investigate. 
As matters arise, the committee will simply have to make those 
determinations.
  It should be pointed out that these questions are not under the 
exclusive province of the majority. I have the greatest respect for 
Senator John Glenn, the ranking Democrat on the Governmental Affairs 
Committee. His many years of service in this body have demonstrated 
beyond question his integrity and his love of his country. We are 
working together with our staffs to ensure that all information is 
equally available to appropriate staff members and committee members. 
We hope that in all cases the work of the committee can be done by the 
staff in a cooperative fashion. Consensus should emerge on which issues 
are the most serious and those matters which will receive the greatest 
consideration. But if legitimate disagreement arises as to priorities, 
the majority will in no way limit the minority's rights to investigate 
any and all parties within the jurisdiction of the committee. Moreover, 
the minority will be given the opportunity to call witnesses in for 
public hearings if we cannot agree upon a joint witness list.

  Although I believe these comments are sufficient to describe what the 
committee plans to examine, I expect to receive further inquiries. So I 
will outline the following as some specific areas we will consider, 
although this is obviously not an exclusive list:
  A. Whether the Presidential campaigns, national political parties, or 
others engaged in any illegal or improper campaign activities, or 
whether illegal campaign contributions were made to such entities, in 
connection with or relevant to the 1996 Presidential campaign.
  B. Whether, during the course of the 1996 Presidential campaign, 
executive branch employees maintained and observed legal barriers 
between fundraising and the official business of governing.
  C. Whether Presidential campaigns remained appropriately independent 
from the political activities pursued for their benefit by outside 
individuals or groups.
  D. Whether any U.S. policies or national security decisions were 
affected by, No. 1, contributions made to or for the benefit of the 
President or, No. 2, improper actions of any executive branch employee 
or former employee.
  E. Whether our existing campaign finance laws, including laws 
governing the disclosure of contributions to entities established for 
the benefit of public officials, should be substantially revised and, 
if so, in what manner.
  F. Whether, based on the results of this investigation, laws other 
than campaign finance laws, such as the laws regulating the conduct of 
Federal officials and employees, should be revised, and, if so, in what 
manner.
  The committee does not intend to examine specific allegations of 
wrongdoing that Congress has already previously considered.
  Now, a significant portion of our inquiry will necessarily focus on 
the executive branch. This is consistent with Congress' historical 
function and obligation to conduct oversight of the executive branch. 
It is a part of our system of checks and balances. It is, by its very 
nature, somewhat of an adversarial process. As Justice Jackson wrote, 
the Constitution ``enjoins upon its branches separateness but 
interdependence; autonomy but reciprocity. Presidential powers are not 
fixed but fluctuate, depending upon their disjunction or conjunction 
with those of Congress.''
  Each branch of government has its rightful prerogatives, Mr. 
President. And just as Congress must understand its prerogatives and 
responsibilities in this process, so must the executive branch. And 
clearly, part of the executive branch's proper role is to protect the 
rightful prerogatives of the President and the Presidency, but also to 
provide prompt, truthful information when Congress requires it when it 
is needed to fulfill Congress' responsibilities. It is important that 
the executive branch refrain from claiming privileges that are 
inappropriate or simply do not exist.
  For example, executive privilege, though not specifically granted to 
the President in the Constitution, is an implied power that has been 
recognized by the courts over the years. Presidents are entitled to 
candid advice from their aides concerning important policy matters that 
would not be forthcoming if it were subject to exposure by Congress or 
anyone else. One the other hand, the privilege does not extend to 
wrongdoing and it does not extend to any and all information that may 
prove embarrassing to the President or others. Although it has not been 
court tested, Senator Sam Ervin, chairman of the Watergate Committee, 
always took the position that matters that were purely political were 
not covered by executive privilege when confronted with a legitimate 
congressional need. What the courts have held is that when it is based 
only on the broad claim of the public interest in confidentiality, 
executive privilege may be outweighed by other considerations. In other 
instances, claims of executive privilege are strongest when invoked in 
the areas of military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security 
secrets.
  Presidents have handled the executive privilege issue with regard to 
congressional investigations in different ways. President Nixon fought 
his executive privilege claim all the way to the Supreme Court and 
lost. President Reagan during the Iran contra investigation waived all 
executive privilege and attorney client privilege claims that he may 
have had. Also, President Carter waived all privileges when the 
activities of his brother were investigated. As instructive examples of 
the cooperation of these two Presidents, they both allowed 
congressional examination of all documents, and President Reagan even 
provided his personal notes and diary entries.
  The President and others have correctly pointed out that the American 
people are tired of petty partisan bickering and the meanness that 
sometimes seem to pollute the atmosphere in Washington, DC. While this 
is undoubtedly accurate, I believe the American people also want us to 
stand for something, including the truth. That makes it our obligation 
to find it and lay it out. So the question becomes: Can we carry out 
our responsibilities and assist the American people in learning the 
truth about the strengths and weaknesses of the operation of their 
Government without engaging in mean spiritedness or partisan warfare? 
From time to time in our history, when the occasion required it, 
Members of this body have put partisanship aside, vocally criticized 
and even filed suit against an administration of their own party. 
Former Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee and former Senator 
Warren Rudman of New Hampshire come to mind. I have no doubt that my 
Democratic colleagues on the committee and in this body will do the 
same if the evidence calls for it. And I pledge my every effort to 
insure that their actions are not met with attempts to obtain partisan 
advantage.

  But let us be frank at the outset. The extent to which we can have a 
thorough, bipartisan investigation without many of the recriminations 
we have seen in the past is going to depend in large part upon the 
attitude of those in the White House and the executive branch. The same 
can be said of the length of our inquiry. If one looks solely to the 
past, there is little reason to be optimistic. We have seen what 
appears to be a grudging release of information in drips and drabs and, 
seemingly, only when forced to. We have seen the broadest claims of 
executive and attorney client privilege in our history. We have seen 
all manner of delaying tactics which congressional oversight committees 
claimed were intended to avoid scrutiny by Congress, where 
noncooperation has been stretched past the cutoff dates of committee 
investigations or even sessions of Congress. Accusations have abounded 
that disclosure has been withheld until after the Presidential election 
to avoid scrutiny by the people. We understand the nature of that game 
and we will not play it. We will do whatever is necessary and proper to 
make sure that such actions are not rewarded, including the 
continuation of investigations and the institution of court proceedings 
when appropriate.
  It doesn't have to be that way. I am still optimistic that it won't 
be that way. I think it possible that the President may have been 
overlawyered in

[[Page S718]]

the past; that while strategies may have been employed that were clever 
legal defense strategies, they were perhaps detrimental to the good of 
the country and even to the President himself. I am hoping for a new 
day. I am hoping the committee can establish its willingness to proceed 
in good faith. There is a new team in the White House, individuals with 
excellent reputations who commend respect. I am hoping that the new 
White House counsel will understand that his position is one of counsel 
to the office of the President. He is not the President's personal 
attorney.
  And I cannot believe that the President does not want to get to the 
bottom of the serious allegations that have been made. In the first 
place, he took an oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the 
Constitution, including his article II responsibility to take care that 
the laws are faithfully executed. The President has publicly 
acknowledged that some of the DNC's contributions were illegal. Since 
under the best of interpretations, these are matters that reflect upon 
him and his Presidency, he above all should want to seen them cleared 
up, and I believe that he does. I would like to think that the 
President would be outraged at this turn of events and feel 
an obligation and responsibility to get to the bottom of the matter, 
including clearing the names of anyone who may have been unjustly 
accused.

  Nor is it enough to simply call for campaign finance reform. I trust 
that my position on this issue is well known. I cosponsored along with 
Senator McCain and Feingold, campaign finance reform legislation in 
1995, my first year in the Senate. I was for campaign finance reform 
when campaign finance reform wasn't cool. I have long thought we simply 
spend too much time soliciting too much money from too many people who 
are interested in legislation that we consider. I'm not sure that the 
solution is and I am hopeful that part of what this investigation will 
do is examine our campaign finance system and seek out ways in which we 
can improve it. But those of us with responsibilities in this area, 
whether it be the President or Members of Congress, cannot let the call 
for reform serve to gloss over serious violations of existing laws. If 
we do that the reform debate will be cast in a totally partisan context 
and insure that, once again, campaign finance reform will be killed.
  The question constantly arises as to when public hearings will begin. 
Interestingly, Democrats, Republicans, the White House, and the news 
media all are seemingly interested in having hearings as soon as 
possible--I would guess all for different reasons. I share that desire. 
However, the committee's obligation is not to do it early but to do it 
right. Certain things should be kept in mind by those who, on a daily 
basis, ask when hearings will begin. In the first place, establishing a 
hearing date, or even a target date when dealing with such a broad 
array of matters as listed above, would be nothing more than guesswork. 
The hearings should begin as soon as the matters have been properly 
investigated and not before. Time spent in proper investigation and 
preparation prevents disjointed hearings and saves time in the long 
run. This is not a matter of hauling a bunch of people whose names have 
been in the paper before the camera and hurling charge at them.
  This committee as presently constituted and my chairmanship came 
about less than 3 weeks ago. We must rely extensively upon new staff 
that is just being hired and we do not have a full complement yet. 
Clearances must be obtained. Facilities must be set up. Documents must 
be gathered and carefully reviewed. A check of the history of other 
major committee investigations reveals that 3 or 4 months of 
investigation and preparation before the beginning of the hearing phase 
is the norm. That is not to say that it will take our committee that 
long. I am hopeful that it will not. But it will take whatever it 
takes. And as I have stated, the level of cooperation we receive from 
the White House and the rest of the executive branch is directly 
relevant. Most importantly, of course, one cannot tell in the beginning 
of an investigation what leads may be developed.
  One final thought: Most of us did not come to Washington to tear 
down, but to build up. But, the Founding Fathers did not believe that 
the errors of government were self-correcting. They knew that only 
constant examination of our shortcomings, and learning from them, would 
enable representative government to survive for hundreds of years past 
their own time. They believed correctly that this process makes America 
stronger, not weaker. We are heirs to that legacy, and we will strive 
to be deserving of it, by taking this step toward restoring the 
public's confidence in the Government for which our forebears were 
willing to sacrifice everything.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I have listened very carefully to my 
friend, the senior Senator from Tennessee and the chairman of our 
committee, and heard him describe an investigation that he plans to 
conduct as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee. I welcome 
his comments.
  As the ranking member of the committee and as someone who was 
chairman for some 8 years, this can be a most important hearing for our 
committee. Today I want to publicly pledge to him my best efforts to 
cooperate in establishing the bipartisan atmosphere that he called for 
and that I believe Senator Thompson genuinely wants to have as we go 
forward.
  I am pleased that Chairman Thompson in his opening remarks mentioned 
the importance of defining the scope of the investigation and its 
purpose. He also talked about principles that should be applied if the 
investigation is to be successful. I will refer back to these 
principles a little later in my remarks. But I think it was helpful 
that Chairman Thompson included a partial list of areas to be 
considered. There is no question that the issues raised in his list are 
among those that ought to be examined, and I support them. I agree with 
him fully when we talk about the informing function of Congress, but I 
agree with it more as a starting point than as an end to our 
investigation.

  I think it becomes far more meaningful that instead of just limiting 
this to the 1996 Presidential campaign, we also use this informing 
function to recommend what can be done about the situation we are 
investigating. I think that is what the American people want.
  So I think that a more meaningful, fair list must include additional 
questions about improper practices in national campaigns. In addition 
to looking at the problem of foreign contributions, which certainly 
should be looked at, the Governmental Affairs Committee must look, for 
example, at the problem of soft money used by unregistered 
organizations without disclosure and without limitation to influence 
elections, and the misuse of Government offices and staff for political 
purposes, and abuses of power in coercing campaign contributions, the 
misuse of charitable and other organizations and promises of special 
access to Government-elected officials. The Governmental Affairs 
Committee should look into these types of practices whether examples 
are found in connection with the executive or the legislative branch.
  My point, Mr. President, is this: There is no end to the questions 
that might be asked about improper or illegal fundraising and spending 
in political campaigns. So we need to establish objectives for the 
investigation without making the inquiry too narrow and thereby risk at 
least a perceived partisan approach. Defining the committee's 
objectives will help determine the scope of the investigation, but, 
most of all, the committee's scope should be determined by the 
committee's purpose in these investigations. Any major Senate 
investigation --and this will be one--ought to have a clear purpose.
  To make an analogy, I recall many of my colleagues asking on this 
Senate floor not too long ago when we were considering United States 
entry into Bosnia, what is the exit strategy? Demands were made for an 
exit strategy before there would be a vote.
  That was a reasonable question then, and I think it is a reasonable 
question in regard to this inquiry. In each context, the exit strategy 
is inseparably linked to purpose. What is the purpose of this 
investigation? Or perhaps the better question to ask now is, what 
should be the purpose of this investigation?

[[Page S719]]

  The chairman has stated he intends this exercise to inform the 
public. That is one of our purposes as an oversight and investigatory 
committee, so I support that fully and completely. I do not think it is 
enough that we view our purpose as informational only. We need to take 
the next step. We need to correct the problems with our campaign 
system. That is what the American public wants. I think that is what we 
want on both sides of the aisle. That is what both political parties 
have said they want. It means that to correct the problems, we are 
going to have to investigate then wherever those problems may be, not 
just on a narrowly defined limit of the last election.
  All the questions posed by my distinguished colleague in his remarks 
point to campaign finance practices that may be illegal or, if not, in 
my view ought to be illegal. I happen to think that the reform of 
campaign finance laws should be our daily objective in this Congress. 
However, I am convinced that the fight over passing real campaign 
finance reform will not be won until the pressure from the American 
people becomes overwhelming, and I think these hearings and this 
investigation can make that interest overwhelming. That is the reason I 
think we should go the next step.
  This investigation, if done right--and I am convinced it will be--
could be the vehicle to create that pressure. But it will not happen if 
this investigation somehow turns into partisan pointing and bickering 
back and forth, and I do not think it will happen if the inquiry drags 
on into next year, an election year, when changing the campaign finance 
laws will be virtually impossible.

  If we do not use this unique opportunity to reach real reform, the 
American people will have a tendency to say a pox on both our houses, 
and I think they will probably be right.
  So I say to Chairman Thompson and my Republican colleagues, let us 
not only inform but let us take that next step of enactment of campaign 
finance reform this year as our goal and as a major purpose of this 
investigation. Inform, certainly, but take the next step as well.
  Let us examine the most important and egregious set of political 
fundraising and spending practices--not just pointing at one spot but 
let us look at the practice. Let us write a report this year that tells 
the American people really how badly this system has been operating and 
how it should be fixed. And Heaven knows, we are experts on it because 
we deal with this system every day and every time we have to run for 
reelection. And then let us go out and fix it before the year is over.
  Is there misuse, for instance, of nonprofits and tax exempts? There 
is misuse of foreign funds; we know that. What are the major misuses of 
soft money? What are the misuses of Government itself? And wherever we 
need to go to get information that helps us correct those problems and 
others is where we should go.
  These, Mr. President, are my thoughts about purposes and scope and 
duration of this investigation. So I think we need to devote the next 
few weeks to an effort hopefully integrating Chairman Thompson's vision 
of this investigation with what I have suggested here today, that we go 
beyond just the informational role and try and make some suggestions to 
fix the system.
  Then we need to come back to the Senate--together perhaps--and 
present our plan for approval by the full body because the Senate will 
be very much involved with this whole effort. This inquiry presents us 
with an opportunity to accomplish something together. We have had 
people on both sides of the aisle this year in positions of leadership 
and regular membership talk about how we must work together this year. 
We have come off a couple of bruising years here in the Congress of the 
United States, so I view this inquiry as an opportunity, truly an 
opportunity as Democrats and Republicans that will be worthwhile and 
lasting for the American people.
  As I indicated earlier in my remarks, I wish to address the issue of 
principles in the conduct of this investigation. The Senator from 
Tennessee made some very constructive remarks in his presentation 
regarding the role of the minority and the relationship of majority to 
minority in the conduct of this investigation, and I thank him for that 
and I wish to elaborate on them just a little bit.
  First, to assure that the committee's investigation is fair, 
bipartisan, and legislatively productive, I think it is vital the 
Senate define the scope and procedures and duration of the 
investigation in the omnibus committee funding resolution.
  Now, a definition of scope and duration will enable the Senate in 
providing funds for the investigation to establish what it is 
authorizing, the subjects about which it wishes to learn from the 
committee, and when it wishes the committee to report. There should 
also be a specification of even-handed procedural ground rules for the 
investigation.
  For example, the majority and minority should have contemporaneous 
access to all documentary evidence received by the committee. The 
majority and minority should have the right to be present at and 
participate equally in all depositions and investigatory interviews. 
And the majority and minority should have equal opportunity to obtain 
and present relevant testimonial and documentary evidence on the 
subjects of the committee's inquiry.
  These are just safeguards for a fair and bipartisan inquiry which is 
in keeping with contemporary Senate practice. This is the way the last 
several Senate investigations have been done, and Senate practice from 
investigations of this kind dictate that it should be expressly spelled 
out before the actual investigating begins so we do not get into an 
unpleasant disagreement in the middle of the hearings.
  Also, the minority should have sufficient personnel and resources to 
enable it to take part fully in acquiring and analyzing evidence. That 
may be a problem because ordinarily the committee split on resources 
here in the Senate is one-third/two-thirds. I do not anticipate that is 
going to change in this investigation. But it means on the minority 
side, that to have an even prospect of having an even ability to look 
at areas we might want to explore, we are at a disadvantage going in.
  So it is obvious that many issues will have to be negotiated in order 
to reduce the risk that the Governmental Affairs investigation 
degenerates into a partisan finger pointing exercise. I certainly do 
not want to see that happen.
  All of us in the Senate, and in particular all of us on the 
committee, have a grave responsibility. That responsibility is to 
ensure that this investigation moves forward in a constructive and 
bipartisan manner. I look forward to mutual respect among all 
participants. Most of all, we need to enter into this with the 
interests of the American people uppermost in our minds, rather than 
any partisan political advantage. And that means looking in all 
directions, wherever we find any information that may direct us to what 
I see as the secondary objective of our hearings, and that is not only 
to inform but to recommend ways to correct these problems so we do not 
go on into the next election with some of the same abuses taking place 
all over the country that occurred in this last election.
  My distinguished chairman has said this is his aim. I certainly take 
him at his word. He is a man of his word. I know that. We want to work 
together on this. So I hope we can come quickly to an agreement on 
scope, on time, on process, on cost of the investigation, and place 
that agreement in the funding resolution for the Governmental Affairs 
Committee.
  This can be a most important activity we are about to embark on here. 
From all appearances it is going to be fairly long and arduous, and I 
think it is important we set these kinds of rules before we get going; 
not important just for us on a personal basis here, but it is important 
that somebody work this out for the American people. That is what this 
committee has the opportunity to do.
  I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Brownback]. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________