[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 24 (Friday, February 28, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1790-S1791]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRESIDENTIAL VIOLATION OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN LAW
Mr. CRAIG. In speaking in morning business this morning, I want to
express my concern, actually for the first time, on an issue that has
been brewing publicly and not so publicly for well over 2 months now.
As the Senate struggles to try to develop a mechanism under which we
can effectively investigate the alleged wrongdoing at the White House
as it relates to Presidential campaign fundraising, the issue gets
larger and larger by the day. Yesterday, I finally believed it was time
to speak out in relation to the Justice Department appointing
independent counsel. I say so because it is obvious to me now that the
public does not want the Congress to grind itself into gridlock and
partisan fracturing in an effort to do what it should responsibly do,
and that is investigate alleged wrongdoing or violations of law on the
part of the executive branch.
Be that as it may, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
also finding themselves in what I believe to now be a most embarrassing
situation, having to argue that we probably ought not to do this, or to
reduce the scope of what we should legitimately do, all in defense of a
President who, by the hour, appears to be increasingly more involved in
what is allegedly wrongdoing or violation of Federal campaign law.
So, yesterday, I asked the Attorney General in a press release to
appoint independent counsel and to move ahead with what she and the
Justice Department must responsibly and rightfully do. The New York
Times editorialized, and they said this:
Janet Reno's insistence that she is waiting for creditable
evidence before appointing an independent counsel has now
reached a point of mindlessness. By the standards that
applied to the Carter, Reagan, and Bush administrations,
the threshold for appointing an independent counsel has
been reached and passed. If she will but look, Ms. Reno
will see a pervasive pattern of reckless behavior and an
array of suspicious incidents that cry out for an
independent counsel.
That editorial went on to say--it speaks of the White House, and it
says:
Presidents and their White House aides are inevitably
involved in campaign planning, as certainly U.S. Senators are
in the planning of their campaigns. But, by openly bartering
Presidential invitations for political contribution and by
relentlessly mixing official and political, this
administration has gone so far beyond the normal rules of
political behavior and the traditional interpretation of
Federal law that even so dogged a Democrat as Pat Moynihan. .
. .
And so on and so forth. And it speaks again for Ms. Reno to appoint
that independent counsel.
This morning in the Washington Times, again, headlines, ``Reno Not
Ready for Outside Probe.''
My question today is to Ms. Reno. When will you be ready? When there
is a massive public outcry of wrongdoing or alleged wrongdoing? When
the evidence piles so high at the door of the White House that you
cannot step across the threshold to go see your friend, the President,
Mr. Clinton?
Ms. Reno, wake up. Listen to what is being said in public. It is time
to act. It is time we develop an independent counsel, bipartisan,
nonpartisan, to investigate what is now verging on a major scandal.
Someone asked me while I was traveling in Idaho last week, ``Why is the
President out advocating campaign finance reform when it appears that
he is the greatest violator?'' I said, ``There is an old adage that
those who sin the most are the first to the altar.''
We find it increasingly embarrassing to read in the newspapers
everyday that somehow the White House, the very image of this country,
was used for personal gain in a way that no other President has used
it.
So, once again, today I call on the Attorney General to do what she
must responsibly do. The allegations grow by the day. Ms. Reno, do what
you should do. Appoint an independent counsel to investigate, in a
nonpartisan way, what should be done, for the sake of the Presidency
and the White House itself.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal
article entitled ``Irate Clinton Blasts Moves for Counsel'' be printed
in today's Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 18, 1997]
Irate Clinton Blasts Moves for Counsel
(By David Rogers)
Washington.--An angry President Clinton called Democratic
senators this week complaining of demands inside the party
for a special counsel to investigate foreign influence in
fund raising for his presidential campaign.
Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D., S.D.) was awakened around
1 a.m. Monday by Mr. Clinton. Leaders of the Democratic
Senatorial Committee were also called Sunday night by the
president, who angrily reminded senators he had gone to New
York to raise money for their campaigns in the prior week.
None of the senators called by Mr. Clinton would discuss
these conversations, and the White House declined to comment.
Members of Congress and Democratic aides, however, confirmed
the timing and substance of the calls. Mr. Clinton appears to
have been provoked by Sunday talk shows in which former New
Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley and Sen. Russell Feingold (D., Wis.)
endorsed the appointment of an independent counsel.
[[Page S1791]]
The picture of an agitated president making late-night
calls is very different from the calm image the White House
has sought to project. The incident testifies to the
increased tension between Mr. Clinton and Congress amid the
almost daily revelations regarding his past fund-raising
practices.
Trying to seize the high ground, Democrats are demanding
that Republicans make a commitment to allow campaign-finance-
reform legislation to come to the floor this year. But Mr.
Clinton's outbursts may only feed Republican complaints that
Democrats are stalling on behalf of the embattled president--
an important fund-raiser.
The fight is expected to come to a head in the Senate as
early as next Wednesday. Mr. Dashcle said yesterday that
Republicans must promise to bring up campaign reform this
spring if Democrats are to support funding for a GOP-backed
inquiry of campaign abuses by the White House.
``We will not agree to funding . . . to anything, until we
get campaign-finance reform,'' said the South Dakota
Democrat. His statement, the clearest linkage of the two
issues to date, is designed to exploit GOP division on this
front.
The Republicans' strongest reform advocate, Arizona Sen.
John McCain, supports both an independent counsel and a
campaign-finance bill, but Majority Leader Trent Lott (R.,
Miss.) is decidedly cool to overhauling the current system.
Caught in the middle is Sen. Fred Thompson (R., Tenn.), who
chairs the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, charged
with carrying out the planned inquiry. And some Republicans
are openly proposing to scuttle Mr. Thompson's budget if the
investigation becomes a vehicle to advance campaign reform.
Mr. Lott last night warned Democrats against filibustering
the committee's funding but said he had exhausted efforts to
reach a compromise and expected to meet the issue head-on
next week.
As the Thompson inquiry has stalled, smaller investigations
are springing up. One of the latest comes from a Senate
Judiciary subcommittee overseeing the National Bankruptcy
Review Commission. The commission's chairman, Brady
Williamson, attended a fund-raiser for Mr. Clinton last
September that drew a large set of big donors from the
bankruptcy professional community.
In an interview this week, Mr. Williamson said he went as a
``private citizen'' and only after seeking an opinion from
the White House counsel's office. But Sen. Charles Grassley
(R. Iowa), chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee, said
yesterday he had received written correspondence indicating
those running the event had pressured members of the banking
industry to attend if they wanted to be heard on bankruptcy
issues.
In another development, Federal Bureau of Investigation
agents who this week raided the Washington offices of the
U.S.-Thai Business Council couldn't find records related to
Ban Chang International, which shared offices with the
council and helped finance it. Pauline Kanchanalak, a major
Democratic contributor whose gifts are now under srcutiny by
the FBI, worked for Ban Chang and helped organize the
council.
Ban Chang is a subsidiary of Ban Chang Group, a
conglomerate based in Bangkok, Thailand. Last June Ms.
Kanchanalak and a relative gave $185,000 to the Democratic
National Committee in conjunction with a coffee event at the
White House with President Clinton, attended by top
executives of another Thai conglomerate, CP Group.
People familar with the matter say the FBI wants to know if
Ms. Kanchanalak knows where the records are, but she is
currently thought to be in Thailand. Her Washington-based
attorney, and an attorney for Ban Chang in Washington,
couldn't be reached for comment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New
Hampshire.
____________________