[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 29 (Monday, March 10, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2057-S2078]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES BY THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of Senate Resolution 39, which the clerk 
will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 39) authorizing expenditures by the 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported 
from the Committee on Rules and Administration, with an amendment to 
strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following:

       That (a) Senate Resolution 54, agreed to February 13, 1997, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:


                  ``Authorization of Additional Funds

       ``Sec. 24. (a) In General.--A sum equal to not more than 
     $4,350,000, for the period beginning on the date of adoption 
     of this section and ending on December 31, 1997, shall be 
     made available from the contingent fund of the Senate out of 
     the Account for Expenses for Inquiries and Investigations for 
     payment of salaries and other expenses of the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs under this resolution, of which amount 
     not to exceed $375,000 may be expended for the procurement of 
     the services of individual consultants, or organizations 
     thereof (as authorized by section 202(i) of the Legislative 
     Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended). The expenditures by 
     the Committee on Governmental Affairs authorized by this 
     section supplement those authorized in section 13 and may be 
     expended solely for the purpose stated in this section.
       ``(b) Purpose of Additional Funds.--The additional funds 
     authorized by this section are for the sole purpose of 
     conducting an investigation of illegal activities in 
     connection with 1996 Federal election campaigns.
       ``(c) Referral To Select Committee on Ethics.--The 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs shall refer any evidence of 
     illegal activities involving any Member of the Senate 
     revealed pursuant to the investigation authorized by 
     subsection (b) to the Select Committee on Ethics.
       ``(d) Final Report.--The Committee on Governmental Affairs 
     shall submit a final public report to the Senate no later 
     than January 31, 1998, of the results of the investigation, 
     study, and hearings conducted by the Committee pursuant to 
     this section.''.
       (b) Section 16(b) of Senate Resolution 54, agreed to 
     February 13, 1997, is amended by--
       (1) striking ``$1,339,109'' and inserting $1,789,109''; and
       (2) striking ``$200,000'' and inserting $300,000''.
       (c) The Committee on Rules and Administration shall 
     continue to conduct hearings on campaign reform.

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, on Thursday of last week, the Rules 
Committee reported out an amendment to Senate Resolution 39, and it is 
my understanding that the present business is that pending amendment, 
which does amend, if decided by the Senate, rule 39.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank the Chair. We will now proceed 
to discuss the amendment as passed by the Rules Committee on Thursday 
of last week, the 6th of March.
  Madam President, the responsibility of the Rules Committee is to 
entertain, from all committees of the U.S. Senate, their requests for 
funding. We have, in Senate Resolution 54, which has been adopted by 
the Senate, the budgets for all of the committees of the Senate for 
their fiscal year, which runs from March 1 through February 28.
  The Committee on Governmental Affairs, in Senate Resolution 39, 
submitted their request for funding. In the initial consideration of 
Senate Resolution 39 by the Rules Committee, the committee determined 
that they would grant a portion of the funding request, and that is 
reflected in Senate Resolution 54.
  The Governmental Affairs Committee still had, under Senate Resolution 
39, the balance of their request, which was considered on the 6th of 
March by the Rules Committee. After a full debate--and certainly in the 
judgment of the chairman, myself, and actively participated in by 
Senators on both sides, as we had nearly 100 percent attendance at the 
committee hearing on both sides--the committee voted to provide $4.35 
million for the Committee on Governmental affairs as a supplemental to 
the request as reported in Senate Resolution 54.
  Now, how did we arrive at that figure? You can look at the request of 
the distinguished Senator from Ohio--indeed, a request that, by and 
large, was supported by most on that side of the aisle--that there be a 
definitive date for cutoff, and that date by the senior Senator from 
Ohio was December 31 of this calendar year, 1997.
  If I took that and viewed it as a reduced period of time; namely, 
that the Governmental Affairs Committee could begin its work using the 
supplemental funds, March 15, from a practical standpoint, through 
December 31, 1997, it would appear to this Senator that we would have, 
by and large, given that committee the funding profile in dollars in 
proportion to the timing from which those funds may be expended.
  The next question was the scope. I worked with other colleagues, 
primarily those on the Rules Committee, and I devised a formula, in 
consultation with the distinguished majority leader and others, whereby 
looking at the original Watergate resolution, we took from that the 
concept that we would allow the Governmental Affairs Committee to 
expend the supplemental budget for such investigations that they felt 
were illegal in connection with the 1996 Presidential election and 
congressional elections--not delineating between the House and Senate, 
but simply all Federal elections in calendar year 1996.
  So it seems to me that the Rules Committee, in a fair manner, 
recognized the dollars that we needed, gave the Governmental Affairs 
Committee a scope of the investigation and illegal--illegal is a very 
broad scope. It goes beyond. And I will at a later time today put into 
the Record the definitions of illegal. But it goes beyond just criminal 
assertions of allegations of criminal violations. It goes beyond that. 
So it is a broad scope. Then the Rules Committee took from the 
proposal, which the senior Senator from Ohio will address momentarily, 
a termination date of December 31, 1997.
  In addition to the Rules Committee, I think very importantly 
recognizing the essential need for the Senate of the United States to 
actively participate in determining what happened, certainly in 1996 in 
connection with the ever-increasing number of allegations--most

[[Page S2058]]

of them regrettably could border on or do, in fact, constitute 
illegal--it was essential that the other committees of the Senate take 
on their responsibilities, which is traditional under the allocation in 
the Senate of the responsibilities among the several committees. 
Therefore, we charged the Rules Committee, of which I am privileged to 
be the chairman, the duty to continue its hearings on campaign finance 
reform, gave it a sum of $450,000 to be used by that committee in 
enlarging and broadening the scope of their operations in the overall 
context of campaign reform and campaign financing. So the Rules 
Committee will take on an added role.
  In addition, if there is that development by the Governmental Affairs 
Committee or the Rules Committee of facts which should be examined by 
the Ethics Committee of the U.S. Senate as those facts relate to a 
Member of this body, it will be incumbent upon the Ethics Committee to 
review any allegations we feel merit the judgment of that committee as 
it relates to an individual in the U.S. Senate.
  So, Madam President, I feel that the Rules Committee unanimously, 
regrettably--bipartisan, yet unanimous among the Republicans--has 
addressed this tough issue, and we are here today for the purpose of 
amending Senate Resolution 39 such that they can have the additional 
funds and under a very carefully crafted and proscribed scope of 
activities within a time limit of December 31, 1997.
  Madam President, I yield the floor so that my distinguished colleague 
from Ohio can present his views.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Madam President, we are now into the second week in March. 
The Senate has been operating for approximately 2 months. I don't know 
that we have had much in the way of accomplishment during that time 
period. Certainly, there are national problems that should be 
addressed.
  For example, we ought to be working on balancing the budget instead 
of just trying to pass amendments, which we tried to do, and it failed. 
We also have a series of problems with our health care system. Managed 
care may be saving money, but there is increasing evidence that it is 
happening at the expense of lower quality of health care. So, for 
uninsured Americans, that continues to be a major problem. As far as 
health care goes, we are going to have a debate, I guess, about 
partial-birth abortion.

  In other areas, the stock market has gone through the roof. 
Unemployment is at a 25-year low. But there is concern about the 
future, and about Social Security and Medicare. But there are no 
serious proposals by the Republican majority to deal with these issues. 
Well, today we have an opportunity. We have an opportunity to have the 
possibility of beginning a serious discussion about a serious issue: 
the campaign finance system used by both political parties in the 
United States.
  The American people are disgusted by what they see in campaign 
finance. And they should be. Along with the steady drumbeat of 
antigovernment ideologues, it is a major factor in America's loss of 
faith in our institutions of government. It is that serious. All you 
have to do is look at the polling data and such things as decreased 
participation in voting. If this trend continues, if America goes 
downhill because of the lack of confidence in our Federal Government, I 
say that we face a crisis that could literally threaten the foundation 
of democracy in the United States.
  There is a remedy to avert this crisis, as I see it, and to begin the 
restoration of public support for this system of government. The remedy 
requires that we reform the campaign finance system. It is a wonderful 
place to start because it certainly needs reforming.
  Will this get a serious examination by Congress, or will we get 
sidetracked by a partisan political circus? The jury is definitely out 
on that at this time. We have before us a resolution to fund a Senate 
investigation which, if the scope were made broader than it currently 
is, has enormous potential as a tool to stimulate public pressure on 
Congress to enact meaningful campaign finance reform, honest campaign 
finance reform.
  Recent revelations about fundraising involving 1996 Federal races are 
disturbing. They involve both parties in both congressional and 
Presidential campaigns. The truth is that the current fundraising 
system, both Presidential and congressional, is scandalous. Having said 
that, in my opinion, most Members of Congress are honest elected 
officials, both over in the House and here in the Senate. They are 
honest elected officials trying to do a good job, albeit from different 
political philosophies. But that is our system. But the general public 
perception that money gets its way in determining policy is, indeed, 
true for too many.
  There is a public perception that access follows money, and anybody 
who has been around Capitol Hill very long knows that sometimes it 
does. Access can alter the balance of arguments weighed by a Member and 
his or her staff when deciding a course of action, be it a vote on the 
floor or in committee, a colloquy on the Senate floor, introduction or 
cosponsorship of a piece of legislation, floor speech, insertion of 
language in a committee report, or a communication with an executive 
branch agency requesting an action, or the withholding of an 
action. But even when there is no connection whatsoever between a 
donation by a person to a politician and the latter's specific action 
as a legislator favoring that person, the perception of a payoff, even 
the possibility of a perception of a payoff, is corrosive to public 
trust in our Government. We must dispel this growing perception that 
Congress or parts of Congress are for sale if we are to reverse 
electoral apathy and restore faith in our Government. Gift bans have 
not done it. Honoraria bans have not done it. Only deep changes in the 
campaign finance system will do the job, and it will not be easy.

  The question is what should be the relationship of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee investigation to the drive for effective bipartisan 
campaign finance reform? The resolution before us, S. 39, as amended by 
the Rules Committee, states that the supplemental funds to be given to 
the Governmental Affairs Committee for this investigation are for the 
sole purpose of an investigation into illegal activities in the 1996 
Federal election campaign.
  There are two things wrong with this statement of scope for the 
investigation. The first thing is that it is a bald-faced attempt by 
the Republican majority of the Rules Committee to undo a unanimous 
bipartisan agreement among the members of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee to have a broad investigation that would examine improper as 
well as illegal activities along with previous campaigns. Contrary to 
the claims of the Rules Committee chairman that his language tracks the 
Watergate resolution, the fact is that the Watergate resolution called 
for an investigation of improper and unethical activities as well as 
illegal ones.
  I am looking at a copy of the Watergate resolution that was passed in 
the Senate back in 1973. It was submitted by Senator Ervin, Sam Ervin 
and Mike Mansfield. In part 15 on page 8, it says they are ``to look 
into any other activities, circumstances, materials or transactions 
having a tendency to prove or disprove that persons, acting either 
individually or in combination with others, engaged in any illegal, 
improper, or unethical activities in connection with the Presidential 
election of 1972, or any campaign, canvas, or activity related to such 
election.''
  That is the language of one of the parts of what the Watergate 
Committee was to look into--any illegal, improper, or unethical 
activities in connection with the Presidential election of 1972.
  The narrowing of the scope of the Governmental Affairs investigation 
by the Rules Committee is nothing more than a blatant pander to those 
elements in the Republican Party that do not wish to reform the 
campaign finance system and who are quite willing to scuttle the 
Governmental Affairs investigation if necessary to avoid creating 
public pressure to pass a decent bill.
  How does narrowing the scope to illegal activities avoid this problem 
for the Republicans? The first thing to understand is that the problem 
with the campaign finance system is not just what politicians do that 
is illegal. It is what politicians do that is legal that is

[[Page S2059]]

an equal scandal, and it happens every single day on Capitol Hill and 
with both political parties.
  Let me give you an example. Let us talk about soft money. That is the 
best example. One of the most pernicious influences in politics these 
days is soft money. Let me give you an example of that. Let us say 
Senator X, whoever it might be, solicits $50,000 or $500,000 in soft 
money from a potential donor to his or her party, ostensibly for party-
building purposes, get-out-the-vote drives or the like. But the party 
can then turn around and use the money on an issue ad during the 
Senator's reelection campaign that helps him or her and hurts the 
opponent.
  According to the Department of Justice, Senator X can even do the 
solicitation for that $500,000 from his or her office because the 
solicitation is not for his or her campaign specifically but, rather, 
for the Senator's party.
  This practice should be illegal, but it is not. Suppose Senator X 
wants a direct contribution to his or her campaign from a potential 
donor, direct to his personal campaign. In that case, Federal election 
law prohibits the donor from contributing more than $1,000 per person, 
and it must be in the donor's own name.

  But that same donor can go out and collect checks of $1,000 for 
Senator X from everyone he knows, bundle them together, and send them 
to the Senator's campaign. Let us say Senator X calls from the 
Senator's office for those donations. If Senator X calls, he is 
committing an illegal act. But if Senator X calls from outside, it is 
OK.
  Suppose Senator X is so grateful, wherever the call came from, for 
the donor's willingness to help that the next time the donor is in town 
and wants to talk to Senator X about a legislative matter he has an 
interest in, Senator X not only lets him into his office but he 
welcomes him and listens to his pitch. And suppose that Senator X is 
sufficiently concerned about maintaining the donor's political help 
that the Senator does what the donor wants on the issue and there was 
no discussion linking the donation to the donor's request or to the 
Senator's action.
  In that case, there has been no bribe. But it is certainly the case 
that Senator X made his decision on the issue as a result of the donor 
having had access to the Senator, access that was based at least in 
part on the donation the Senator was given.
  Now, suppose Senator X made the original call to the donor from the 
Senator's office phone instead of from an outside phone. That would be 
a violation of law. You cannot do that.
  Let me pose the question. Which is the worst ethical lapse, making 
the phone call from a legally prohibited place or letting the money 
influence the Senator's vote? I submit that the answer is not even 
close. Senator X's constituents and the people generally will have been 
ill served if he lets money influence his decision, and that 
overshadows the question of whether the phone he used was a private 
phone or a Government phone.
  What is the point of this fictitious example? Well, the resolution 
before us, which limits the scope of the investigation only to illegal 
activities, would allow an investigation of whether Senator X committed 
an illegal act by using a Government phone for the direct solicitation 
if there was an allegation that he had done so but would allow no 
investigation of the contribution, and if a soft money contribution was 
involved, whether Senator X's party had spent that money on certain ads 
helpful to the Senator's campaign, a legal practice but one that should 
be illegal.
  It is not just the independent expenditures by the major parties that 
is the problem. There are also the independent expenditures by outside 
private groups including tax-exempt organizations that should be 
investigated for possible collusion with party organizations. The 
Washington Post had an article yesterday concerning nonprofits. To 
quote them: ``Mysterious organizations that funded a flurry of attack 
ads at the end of the 1996 election,'' that were targeted mainly 
against Democratic candidates. No one apparently knows who supports 
them. One group, the Coalition for Our Children's Future, spent 
$700,000 on ads, mailings, phone banks, to help Republican candidates 
from Louisiana to California.
  Another group, Citizens for Reform, spent $2 million on ads, 
including a mailing labeling a Democratic candidate for Congress as 
sexist and anticonsumer. And this organization is tax exempt. They are 
not supposed to deal in political matters. In the case of tax-exempt 
organizations, collusion with a political party would be illegal but 
would not involve criminal penalties. In the case of a so-called 
501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, which is prohibited from engaging in 
political activity, there is the question of whether the placing of 
certain issue ads should be considered political activity under certain 
circumstances.
  Will this be investigated by the Governmental Affairs Committee under 
the funding resolutions' current scope statement? That will depend on 
how the word ``illegal'' is interpreted. I must say, at several points 
along the way we have had different interpretations of that word.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post 
article be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GLENN. That is only the beginning of the problems with this 
resolution. It also requires that if any evidence of illegality is 
discovered in the 1996 campaign activities of a Member of Congress by a 
Member of Congress, then such evidence is to be referred to the Ethics 
Committee.
  Does that mean the committee's investigation is to be terminated at 
that point? And, if the evidence comes to the attention of the 
committee before an investigation has even been initiated, does that 
mean the committee is to defer to the Ethics Committee for the 
investigation of the Member? Does referral to the Ethics Committee mean 
that Governmental Affairs will defer to the Ethics Committee on any 
possible criminal referral to the Department of Justice? We need 
answers to all of those things, obviously.
  What if we are into an investigation and there is something that pops 
up that looks as though it might be an ethical matter and might be 
illegal, which this committee would be permitted to deal with? Since 
there is this special provision with regard to ethics in the Senate, in 
referring it to the Ethics Committee, do we have to stop any 
investigation before anything comes out beyond a point where there has 
been just an allegation of illegality?
  So, let me return to the question of the meaning of the word 
``illegal'' in the resolution. What is the standard to be used by the 
Governmental Affairs Committee to determine that an activity involves 
an illegality and is therefore subject to an investigation? Is 
illegality meant to be equivalent to criminality? Or is it broader and 
includes activities that are in violation of law but subject to only 
civil penalties or no penalties at all? The answer to this question 
will determine whether the activities of tax-exempt organizations 
engaged in political activity will be investigated.
  I believe the questions I am raising need to be answered during this 
debate so Members will know precisely what they are voting on when the 
time comes. These questions also need to be answered in order to 
examine whether the 54 subpoenas issued thus far by the chairman of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee are within the new scope of the 
investigation.
  Let me turn to some other deficiencies in the resolution. These are 
also deficiencies of omission. My remarks stem once again from my 
belief that a balanced investigation of fundraising by both parties, 
highlighting legal transgressions as well as their legal but ethically 
dubious fundraising activities, could be effective in pointing the way 
toward real reform. Conversely, an unbalanced, partisan investigation 
suggesting that the problems lie solely or even mainly with one party 
would be destructive to forging a consensus and would lead to political 
games, possibly including an attempt to pass reform legislation crafted 
not so much to fix the system as to give one party a fundraising 
advantage over the other.
  As the ranking Democrat on Governmental Affairs, I have urged the 
chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee to follow standard 
Senate practices and enter into a written agreement that the 
investigation will be

[[Page S2060]]

carried out in a bipartisan manner with an agreed-upon agenda and with 
fairness. That involves ensuring that both the majority and minority: 
have contemporaneous access to all documentary evidence received by the 
committee; have the right to be given adequate advance notice of, to be 
present at, and to participate equally in all depositions and 
investigatory interviews; have equal opportunity to obtain and present 
relevant evidence on the subjects of the committee's inquiry; and, are 
treated equally and without discrimination in the discharge of the 
committee's administrative responsibilities.
  I regret to say that no agreement on these matters has been reached 
thus far. This has most egregiously shown up in the way subpoenas have 
been handled thus far.
  I am hopeful that passage of a funding resolution for the committee's 
investigation will be the occasion to put this investigation back on a 
bipartisan track. I believe that failure to do so will redound to the 
credit of no one and mark the first major stain on this committee's 
record of bipartisan cooperation during my 22-year tenure on it.
  Finally, I must comment on that part of the resolution that provides 
for authorization of some $450,000 in additional funds for the Rules 
Committee to examine those aspects of campaign fundraising that are 
outside the scope of the Governmental Affairs Committee's investigation 
under the terms of this resolution as currently written. It is 
certainly true that the Rules Committee has legislative jurisdiction 
over campaign finance reform and, therefore, can look into soft money 
and independent expenditures, among other things, as policy matters.
  But the Rules Committee is not basically an investigative committee. 
I could not recall the last time it ever issued a subpoena. We made 
some inquiry into this and found that no subpoenas have been issued by 
the committee since at least 1980. We do not know whether any were 
before that time or not. They may do hearings, but that is not the same 
as an investigation as conceived under this resolution.
  Let us not deceive the public about this. Recent press reports 
clearly indicated that at least two members of the Rules Committee, 
Republican members of the Rules Committee, would not vote for the 
funding resolution for the investigation that originally came out of 
the Governmental Affairs Committee because the scope of the 
investigation would have included legal as well as illegal 
congressional fundraising practices. Those Members were concerned that 
the result of such an investigation might be to raise public pressure 
on Congress to pass campaign finance reform legislation.
  The fact is, there is little support for campaign reform among my 
Republican colleagues. The McCain-Feingold bill has only one other 
Republican cosponsor, and that is Senator Thompson, to his credit. So 
we know what game is being played with the Rules Committee rewrite of 
the previously-agreed-to scope of the Governmental Affairs Committee's 
investigation. It is a game in which legal but improper congressional 
fundraising is kept off the table while a parade of Presidential 
fundraisers for the Democratic Party and the Clinton-Gore campaign are 
brought before the cameras at televised hearings, to give the 
impression that all the problems are with the Democratic Party and 
there is no need to change the laws.
  I do not believe it will work. I do not believe the American people 
are that naive. I believe they will see through such a strategy were it 
to unfold. Chairman Thompson has said congressional fundraising should 
be on the table. I agree with him. That is one of the reasons I was 
disappointed when none of his first 65 subpoenas were directed toward 
congressional fundraising. I and my Democratic colleagues will attempt 
to broaden the scope to include legal activities that are improper, 
which is where many of the major campaign finance problems are, and 
which should be thoroughly investigated by the Governmental Affairs 
Committee. So, I hope--in fact I invite Chairman Thompson to join me in 
cosponsoring an amendment I plan to offer to broaden the scope, and I 
invite him to join me in voting against tabling any such amendment.
  I also invite all Members of the Senate, Democratic and Republican, 
who truly want to change our system to join us.
  Let us look at it from your children's perspective of 20 years from 
now. Whichever party is in the majority--and that may have changed in 
that time, maybe before that--but look at your children as adults out 
there, taking part in the political system at that time. Whichever 
party is in the majority at that time, I am sure we can all hope that 
political fundraising will not be the mess that it is today. One way to 
gain that end is to assure that investigations are carried out now 
without fear or favor and spotlighting the dark corners, whether 
illegal or legal, but in either event, wrong, improper, and unethical.
  The resolution before us does not take us in that direction, and that 
is why I also urge Senator Thompson, even if we fail to pass such an 
amendment, to seek every opportunity at our committee level to examine 
and thoroughly investigate any alleged illegal fundraising activities 
by Members of Congress, in the House or Senate. That will at least be a 
start, and I pledge my full support to such efforts.
  So I await with interest his proposed agenda and subpoenas in this 
area.
  At the appropriate time today, before we finish this debate, I will 
have an amendment to submit. I would like to lay it down this evening. 
I doubt all the people on either side of the aisle who wish to speak on 
the amendment will return before we go out of session, but I would like 
to have time later on to submit the amendment before we go out of 
session this evening.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the Washington Post, Mar. 9, 1997]

  For Their Targets, Mystery Groups' Ads Hit Like Attacks From Nowhere

                (By Charles R. Babcock and Ruth Marcus)

       Campaign watchdog groups and government regulators are 
     concerned about the emergence of mysterious organizations 
     that funded a flurry of attack ads at the end the 1996 
     election and could play an even larger role in coming 
     campaigns.
       The groups, with bland names such as Citizens for Reform 
     and the Republic Education Fund, spent millions of dollars on 
     television advertising, mailings and telephone banks in the 
     closing weeks of the campaign, mostly on the side of the 
     Republicans. None of their activities was reported to the 
     Federal Election Commission (FEC).
       ``The public has no idea who these people are or where 
     they're coming from or who funds them,'' said Charles Lewis, 
     executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, which 
     monitors political ethics. ``They are trying to influence the 
     political process and the public is in the dark.''
       For example, a group called the Coalition for Our 
     Children's Future spent more than $700,000 on television and 
     radio ads, mailings, and telephone banks to bolster GOP 
     candidates in key races from Louisiana to California.
       The last-minute onslaught, financed in part by a donor who 
     demanded a written confidentiality agreement, was conducted 
     without the knowledge or approval of the group's directors. 
     Two of the directors resigned in protest after The Washington 
     Post informed them of the late ads, saying they never 
     approved the expenditures. They said they still do not know 
     exactly what was done or the source of funding.
       Former director Deborah Steelman, a GOP lobbyist, said she 
     thought the group had been inactive since spending more than 
     $4 million on advertising backing the GOP's legislative 
     agenda in 1995. ``Clearly, the organization created another 
     mission of which we were not a part,'' she said.
       Like the more identifiable AFL-CIO and environmental groups 
     that also ran advertising, leaders of organizations such as 
     the coalition say their television commercials were not 
     political because they did not explicitly endorse a 
     candidate. Since they were engaging in ``issue advocacy,'' 
     they said, they were not required to report to the FEC the 
     source of their funds or how much they spent.
       One group created last spring and calling itself Citizens 
     for Reform spent $2 million in the closing days, according to 
     its president, conservative activist Peter Flaherty. In 
     California, it sent mailings into the district of Democratic 
     Rep. George Brown accusing him of being sexist and anti-
     consumer. The Consumer Federation of America, cited as the 
     source in one flier although it endorsed Brown, denounced the 
     mailing as ``extremely misleading and grossly unfair.'' In 
     Montana, the group bought television time calling Democratic 
     congressional candidate Bill Yellowtail a convicted criminal 
     who ``preaches family values . . . but took a swing at his 
     wife.''
       Another new group called Citizens for the Republic 
     Educaiton Fund obtained at least $1 million in late ads, 
     according to director Lyn Nofziger, longtime political aide 
     to Ronald Reagan. In Texas, it bought television ads against 
     Democratic congressional candidate Nick Lampson that said he 
     had been

[[Page S2061]]

     accused of Medicare fraud. In Erie, Pa., another television 
     ad denounced ``big labor bosses'' for trying to buy ``a 
     Congress they can control.''
       Some ads were so inflammatory that the Republican 
     candidates they were designed to help denounced them. And 
     some stations would not run some ads or pulled them off the 
     air after complaints by Democratic candidates. Leaders of the 
     groups targeting Democrats say they operated independently 
     and they and GOP officials said the groups were not fronts 
     for the party.
       Nofziger called it, ``outrageous'' that advocacy groups 
     like his are allowed to ``go and run political ads and call 
     them education.'' He added, ``We wouldn't have had to do it 
     if it had not been for labor'' and its attacks on GOP 
     candidates.
       The Flaherty and Nofziger groups were run by a Washington-
     based firm, Triad Management, that advertises itself as sort 
     of an underground version of the Republican Party. A Triad 
     marketing video includes testimonials from Sen. Don Nickles 
     (R-Okla.) and several House members aimed at recruiting 
     donors for what the video labels a ``privatized Republican 
     national coalition.''
       Triad's Carolyn Malenick, a former fund-raiser for Oliver 
     L. North, says on the video that labor has always been the 
     ``rapid fire'' of the Democratic Party. ``If the Republican 
     Party needs that quote `rapid fire' where're we going to find 
     it?'' she said. ``If we need to move or have $100,000 put 
     into a congressional race tomorrow where're we going to find 
     it?'' Malenick declined to be interviewed.
       Mark Braden, Triad's attorney, said the group was not a 
     front for the GOP or a particular special interest, like the 
     tobacco industry. Malenick's donors are mostly individuals 
     from ``ideologically driven networks,'' he said.
       While most of the late negative issue ads with mysterious 
     sponsors targeted Democratic races, a labor-funded group, the 
     '96 Project, paid for voter guides mailed in the name of 
     other groups in 14 races. The project paid $50,000 for 
     mailings in six House districts where the fliers said they 
     were ``sponsored'' by local or state affiliates of the 
     National Council of Senior Citizens, a group made up 
     predominantly of retired union members. There was no mention 
     of the '96 Project in the mailings.
       Scott Wolf, director of the project, said there was no 
     intent to deceive the public on who was behind the mailings, 
     which made GOP candidates look unfavorable on key issues.
       His group also paid for mailings in eight races 
     ``sponsored'' by the Interfaith Alliance, a group of 
     ministers formed as an alternative to the Christian 
     Coalition, according to the alliance's Greg Lebel. Lebel said 
     ``it never occurred to us'' voters might be misled because 
     the eight mailings said only that the '96 Project 
     ``prepared'' the voter guides.
       Most of the late money from obscure groups was spent on 
     television. And Federal Communications Commission officials 
     who monitor political advertising say their authority over 
     broadcasters is limited. Charles Kelley, chief of enforcement 
     for the FCC's mass media bureau, said the agency wants to 
     know ``who is the attempted persuader'' in such ads. The 
     question, he said, is ``what legal authority we have, if any, 
     to obligate the true sponsor to step forward.''
       The FCC managed to do that in a case in Oregon last fall, 
     when it discovered that a group calling itself Fairness 
     Matters to Oregonians was being financed by the Tobacco 
     Institute. The FCC ruled the group's ads, which opposed an 
     increase in the state cigarette tax, could be aired but the 
     tobacco Institute had to be identified as the sponsor.
       Various campaign reform proposals in Congress attempt to 
     address the late attacks by saying the name or image of 
     candidates cannot be mentioned in ads in the last 60 days 
     before the general election. But many lawmakers and interest 
     groups say such proposals would put unconstitutional limits 
     on their First Amendment rights.
       Flaherty, who also heads the Conservative Campaign Fund 
     PAC, said concerns about sponsorship are misplaced. ``Most 
     people when they see an ad don't focus on who put it on, but 
     focus on the message,'' he said. ``If the message has 
     strength and credibility it will persuade people. If it 
     doesn't, it won't.'' In applying for tax-exempt status, which 
     allowed it to avoid paying taxes on investment income, 
     Citizens for Reform told the IRS it had no plans to spend 
     money ``attempting to influence'' elections. But asked 
     whether the groups' advertising had been effective, Flaherty 
     said, ``I think we made a big difference. It was an absolute 
     onslaught in some of these areas by labor and liberal groups 
     and I think we helped stanch the bleeding artery.''
       Perhaps the most peculiar of the late ad campaigns was the 
     one run in the name of the Coalition for our Children's 
     Future, which spent money in six House districts, the 
     Louisiana Senate race and 12 Minnesota legislative races, 
     according to Executive Director Barry Bennett.
       Two directors, Dirk Van Dongen, president of the National 
     Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, and Donald L. Fierce, 
     a GOP consultant and former Republican National Committee 
     aide, resigned in protest; two others, Steelman and Gary 
     Andres, had left the board earlier.
       How the unauthorized advertising campaign was launched and 
     how races were targeted remains murky. Bennett, working in 
     Ohio at the time of the election as chief of staff to then-
     Rep. Frank A. Cremeans (R), at first said he did not know of 
     any extensive late advertising. Then he acknowledged he had 
     signed the secrecy agreement with the donor and signed blank 
     checks to pay a Houston political consultant who ran the 
     advertising campaign. Bennett said he did so without telling 
     board members.
       Bennett and the group's fund-raising consultant, John 
     Simms, said the consultant, Denis Calabrese, approached them 
     last summer and helped connect them with some donors, who 
     they declined to identify. Calabrese, who has worked on 
     industry's side to make it harder to win large damage awards 
     in lawsuits, did not return numerous phone calls.
       Bennett said he had tried without success, after the Post 
     inquiries, to obtain copies of the television scripts from 
     Simms' firm. He said he had no idea what the coalition, 
     organized to address federal issues, was doing in Minnesota 
     statehouse races.
       ``Am I embarrassed by this?'' Bennett said before he 
     stopped returning phone calls. ``Yes . . . I understand we've 
     created a huge mystery here and that's our fault.''

  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, there are others anxious to speak to this. 
I see Senator Hatch is here, and I want to, just in reply to my 
distinguished friend and colleague, say a few words here, and then 
Senator Hatch, hopefully, will take the floor momentarily.
  First, I want to make it very clear, I am not going to personalize 
this debate in any way or use the word ``pandering.'' Nobody is 
pandering anybody around here. What we are trying to do is how to get 
as quickly as possible to the point where the U.S. Senate, in several 
committees, can start looking into this very important issue, hopefully 
in a fair and objective manner, for the best interests of this 
institution and our country.
  I have been in politics--I am almost hesitant to mention how many 
years--but it is a good 40-plus, and I have never in my lifetime ever 
seen a situation engulfing this great Nation, casting more doubt in the 
minds of the voters with regard to how we, those who serve in the 
Congress and those who serve in the executive branch as the President 
and Vice President, go about the process of elections, and we have to 
get at the bottom of this thing as quickly as possible.
  I have indicated my support for Chairman Fred Thompson as a man I 
have absolute faith in, who can deal with this matter fairly and 
objectively, and I have said that for weeks. Never once have I 
deviated, and I do not think there will ever be a basis that I shall 
deviate. I said from the beginning that I want to support him as an 
individual. I want to support the work of his committee. But there is a 
very careful delineation of responsibilities here among the several 
committees, and there is clearly, within the jurisdiction of the Rules 
Committee, which I am privileged to chair, the right to superimpose our 
own judgment on the scope and activities of the other committees of the 
Senate as it relates to those funds under our jurisdiction.
  This is in no way any bald-faced effort by myself or other members of 
the Rules Committee, particularly the distinguished majority leader, 
who was just on the floor consulting with me minutes ago, no way to try 
to do other than what I have just said, which is to get the Senate on 
the track as quickly as possible. We just have to get beyond all of 
this procedure business and get on with the business.
  I said that I drew this scope language, drawing from the Watergate. I 
never said I used it. I have read it now probably 25 times and studied 
the history of it. I know all the words that are in it. It is 
interesting. In the Watergate resolution, I ask my friend, if he wants 
to debate it later on, whether or not you find any authority in there 
to investigate the Congress. I do not find it in the Watergate 
resolution, but it is very clearly expressed in this resolution as 
adopted by the Rules Committee. We in no way tried to obfuscate that 
issue.
  This volume is the ``Authority and Rules of Senate Committees'' for 
the last fiscal year, but it is applicable to this. I would like to 
just read the question of jurisdiction of the Rules Committee, and it 
is found on page 155 of that book. It states we have the authority to 
investigate ``corrupt practices.''
  Now that is about as broad as any charter can be--as broad as any 
charter can be. Then go to section 5:


[[Page S2062]]


       Federal elections generally, including the election of the 
     President, Vice President, and Members of the Congress.

  There it is. That is the jurisdiction of the Rules Committee.
  Now go over to the jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee--and I urge my colleague from Ohio to take a moment or two to 
look through this book so that he can reply--found on page 101, and in 
detail on page 102, where it says, the committee is duly authorized, or 
a subcommittee thereof is authorized to study and investigate.
  You do not find--at least I haven't thus far in studying it--that 
precise language as it relates to the Rules Committee concerning 
jurisdiction over precisely what it is that the U.S. Senate must 
investigate. If anything, this volume gives clearly the authority to 
the Rules Committee, and I find less specificity as it relates to the 
Governmental Affairs Committee.

  Lastly, as to campaign finance reform, the generic subject, the Rules 
Committee held a number of hearings last year. We already commenced our 
series of hearings this year. The distinguished majority leader 
designated the majority whip, Mr. Nickles, and a group of us, including 
the Senator from Virginia speaking, and it is our responsibility to try 
to come up with a grouping of proposals which we have reason to believe 
will effect the greatest possible reform in this generic subject of 
campaign finance reform.
  You bet there are areas which I would like to see changed. In my last 
campaign, I experienced spending by my opponent--and I do not castigate 
him in any way at this point in time, nor did I ever--but clearly he 
had the authority under the Supreme Court decision to spend all the 
money of his personal funds he wished. He set a record in the history 
of the U.S. Senate races from the first day this body was constituted 
through and including today for the greatest amount of money spent for 
a State per capita in the United States.
  I think we should enact some legislation that would curtail, in some 
manner, the limit of an individual to expend millions and millions and 
millions of dollars. In the case of my race, it is presumably in 
excess, it was reported, $10 million out of personal spending. Maybe 
subsequent records will show an additional amount, but that is not here 
to argue. The point being, the only way that can be done is by a 
constitutional amendment. I would not want to see this body rest its 
entire package of reforms that a constitutional amendment is going to 
be adopted in this area of campaign finance reform.
  My own personal opinion, it is highly unlikely that such an 
amendment, even though I would favor certain types of constitutional 
amendments on campaign reform, that that can be achieved; essentially, 
the first amendment, which, again, would require a constitutional 
amendment. There are many areas of campaign finance reform that would 
be solely predicated on the ability to get a constitutional amendment 
in order to achieve those goals.
  I would not want to see this body pass a package of campaign finance 
reform proposals knowing full well in our hearts that the Federal court 
is going to strike down in large measure a number of those provisions.
  So I look forward to continuing to work with the distinguished 
majority leader and the majority whip in seeing what we can come up 
with in a package of campaign finance reform proposals which can be 
adopted by this body and, Mr. President, can withstand the essential 
scrutiny that will come about by the third branch of Government, 
namely, the Federal court system.
  Mr. President, I now yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it befalls me to make a few comments here 
today concerning why this investigation is so important. Before I do, I 
want to compliment the Rules Committee and the people on the Rules 
Committee who have handled this very difficult subject matter and have 
done it in a credible and responsible way.
  I also personally believe that no two people could handle this matter 
better than the chairman and ranking member of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee. Senator Thompson has had extensive experience in these 
matters and Senator Glenn is known as an eminently fair and worthy 
person here in this body. I have total confidence in both of them that 
they will be fair, they will be thorough, they will be tough, and they 
will do what is right.
  We simply have to get to the bottom of this. The American people are 
concerned about it. Certainly the media has written extensively about 
these matters. It is incumbent upon the Senate in its oversight 
capacity to investigate these matters fairly and thoroughly.
  As we take up Senate Resolution 39 today, I would like to just take a 
few minutes to emphasize one major point: That there is a serious 
number of very, very troubling matters to investigate, simply at the 
very core of Senators Thompson's and Glenn's inquiry.
  Merely in recent press reports--if that is all you had--there are 
very substantial and troubling questions that must be answered 
regarding whether foreign money and foreign influence has infiltrated 
the American political process. While numerous other allegations of 
improper fundraising at the White House and by the White House have 
surfaced in the media in the past week or so, that is not what I want 
to talk about today.
  Even putting aside all of those allegations, the fact is that we have 
before us very serious allegations that China funneled funds into 
American elections in an attempt to influence American policy and 
policymakers. The gravity of these allegations should not and must not 
be underestimated. Were our national interests sold out? I hope they 
were not. But this matter must be pursued, and it must be done in a 
thorough, fair, and honest manner.
  Later this week the Judiciary Committee will forward a letter to the 
Attorney General requesting that she apply for an independent counsel. 
To date, she has refused to do so in this matter. I do not read 
anything sinister into that--I believe that the Attorney General is an 
honorable, ethical person of integrity. She has applied for the 
appointment of no less than four independent counsels since she has 
been Attorney General. I think she has shown that she is a person who 
can act. But to date she has refused to act on this matter.
  Accordingly, Congress must be all the more vigilant. And given the 
apparent conflict of interest, the public will be relying on Congress 
to ascertain the facts and get to the bottom of this whole affair.
  The Governmental Affairs Committee inquiry into fundraising 
improprieties is, in my opinion, one of the most important 
congressional investigations in history and involves some of the most 
serious allegations we have seen to date about our electoral system and 
our Government. The press and congressional committees have uncovered 
material facts that prompt numerous questions:
  First, did a foreign government try to influence our national 
elections and our domestic and/or foreign policy?
  No. 2, were millions of dollars of foreign money laundered through 
various groups to the Democratic National Committee, particularly by 
three individuals--Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung, and John Huang, all of 
whom have some ties to China.
  No. 3, were there violations of any of our existing laws, such as the 
Hatch Act, the Ethics in Government Act, and our current Federal 
elections laws?
  The breadth of this particular investigation is immense. We cannot 
allow ourselves, in an attempt to satisfy the tendentious cause for a 
broad inquiry into congressional campaigns, to interfere with what is a 
serious matter.
  Investigating the 1996 Presidential campaign alone will require a 
very substantial budget and a substantial amount of time--I presume 
even more time than the Rules Committee has allowed in this instance, 
which is only until the end of this year or approximately 8 months. I 
suspect this will go on beyond that and will have to go on beyond that 
because of what will be brought out. Let us focus for a moment, 
however, in terms of the breadth of this investigation, on one 
individual--Mr. John Huang. He was born in China. He worked for the 
Lippo Group, a huge conglomerate based in Indonesia with large business 
interests in China. Lippo is owned and controlled by the Riady family--
Mochtar, James, and Stephen. These are also Chinese natives.

[[Page S2063]]

  By 1994, Huang was the top Lippo executive in the United States.
  Huang was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary for International 
Economic Policy in our Department of Commerce in September 1994.
  Let me just go down through what John Huang did while employed at 
Commerce--just a quick glance. He was, according to reports, given a 
top security clearance without the usual background check, which is all 
but unheard of; 78-plus visits to the White House; 70-plus calls to 
Lippo during this period of time; 39 classified top secret briefings 
dwelling on China and other countries in Asia; 30-plus phone 
conversations with Mark Middleton or associates; 9 phone messages from 
or calls to Webster Hubbell; 9 phone messages from the Chinese Embassy 
officials; 5 months of top secret clearance before joining the Commerce 
Department. In other words, even before he got in this very important 
position in Government, he had 5 months of top secret clearance. Why? 
That is a question that is going to be a big question in this matter.
  Huang enjoyed a top secret clearance for 5 months of top secret 
clearance before joining Commerce and nearly a year after leaving 
Commerce to join the Democratic National Committee. Why? Why would 
those security clearances go with him outside of Government? Why would 
he be permitted this kind of access to very sensitive information? 
These are questions that are very important. Taken with the $780,000 
severance pay Huang received from Lippo prior to joining the Commerce 
Department, these facts naturally raise questions.
  This next chart involves a meeting at the White House to discuss the 
Huang transfer from the White House to the Democratic National 
Committee on September 13, 1995. It was an Oval Office meeting. The 
President was there. James Riady, the Lippo executive was there. Bruce 
Lindsey, the Deputy White House Counsel, was there. Joseph Giroir, who 
is, I believe, the former top partner in the Rose Law Firm, the Lippo 
joint venture partner/adviser, former Rose Law Firm partner, and, if I 
recall correctly, was the managing partner of that firm, and none other 
than John Huang, former Lippo executive, Principal Deputy Assistant, 
Secretary of Commerce.
  At this meeting, it was decided that John Huang would move from the 
Commerce Department to the Democratic National Committee as vice 
chairman of finance.
  We do not know what happened at this meeting, although some extremely 
troubling explanations have been reported by the media. Each one of 
these people, it seems to me, with the possible exception of the 
President, will have to be questioned regarding just what went on at 
that meeting, why Huang left Commerce, and why he was immediately 
transferred to the Democratic National Committee as the finance vice 
chairman, why James Riady, was even at this meeting. That is a very 
important meeting.
  Let me put another chart up here.
  This is John Huang at the Democratic National Committee. These are 
examples of illegal funds raised by Huang. The Wiriadinatas raised 
$450,000, all of which was returned by the DNC. Pauline Kanchanalak, 
$250,000. She has since left the country. She is now in Thailand. All 
funds returned by the DNC. Wogesh Gandhi, $250,000. He testified he had 
no assets. All funds returned by the DNC, the Democratic National 
Committee.
  Cheong Am America--or John H.K. Lee--$250,000. Like Kanchanalak and 
others, Cheong Am America--or John H.K. Lee--has disappeared. All of 
these funds were returned by the Democratic National Committee. Hsi Lai 
Buddhist Temple, $166,750: This comes from a temple where the residents 
take a vow of poverty; $74,000 of the $166,750 was returned by the DNC. 
All together, that we know of, John Huang raised $3.4 million, $1.6 
million of which has been returned by the Democratic National 
Committee.

  These are just a few of some of the problems that I think the 
Governmental Affairs Committee is going to have to go into. I do not 
see how they can avoid doing it. To give a picture of some of the 
people who seem to be involved in this, let me just highlight some of 
the other individuals involved in this affair.
  We start with John Huang, former top Lippo executive in the United 
States, who had a $780,000 severance package when he went to Congress. 
He had multiple contacts while there with Lippo.
  The former Democratic National Committee vice chairman raised more 
than $3.4 million, $1.6 million was returned, and he visited the White 
House during this period more than 75 times. C.J. Giroir, in the Lippo 
joint ventures, former Rose Law Firm attorney, met with James Riady, 
President Clinton, and Lindsey on the Huang move to DNC, and donated 
$25,000 to the DNC. Mark Middleton, former White House aide from Little 
Rock, met with James Riady and President Clinton on that occasion, Far 
East business interests, had unlimited access to the White House after 
his departure.
  Charles Trie, Little Rock restauranteur, received a $60,000 loan from 
Lippo, and he arranged with the former Lippo executive Antonio Pan to 
get a Hong Kong dinner for Ron Brown. Trie also attempted to give 
$600,000 to the Clinton legal trust fund, and he visited the White 
House at least 37 times.
  Mark Grobmyer, Little Rock attorney, close friend of President 
Clinton, consultant to Lippo, Far East business interests, met with 
James Riady, Huang and President Clinton. Soraya Wiriadinata, daughter 
of Hashin Ning, former Lippo executive, contributed $450,000 to the 
DNC, and it was all returned, according to the committee. Soraya has 
gone back to Indonesia.
  S. Wang Jun, Lippo joint ventures, Chinese arms merchant, senior 
executive at CITIC and COSTIND, Chinese Government entities, and 
attended a White House conference. Webster Hubbell, former Associate 
Attorney General, received a $250,000 consulting fee from Lippo--would 
not say why he got that.
  Charles DeQueljoe is the president of Lippo Securities in Jakarta, 
gave $70,000 to the Democratic National Committee and was appointed to 
the USTR office. Pauline Kanchanalak, a Thai lobbyist who worked with 
Huang when he was at Lippo, contributed $253,000 to the DNC, and it was 
all returned. She had frequent contacts with Huang. She visited the 
White House at least 26 times. And then we come back to John Huang 
himself.
  Now, all of these people are going to have to be interviewed. We are 
going to have to find out what the facts are here. What was going on? 
Were there illegalities?
  In that regard, these are key players who have taken the fifth 
amendment: John Huang, Charlie Trie, Pauline Kanchanalak, Mark 
Middleton, and Webster Hubbell. I do not see how anybody on the other 
side of the floor can argue that this set of hearings should not go on, 
or that this would not take almost every second of any committee's 
time, and I am only talking about one aspect of it. There are many 
other aspects to this.
  The key players who have left the country--and we have not been given 
reasons why they left the country--are John H.K. Lee--gone. If he is 
going to be interviewed, it is overseas. Charlie Trie, gone, after 
taking the fifth. Pauline Kanchanalak, gone--as far as I know, back in 
Thailand, after having taken the fifth amendment. Arief and Soraya 
Wiriadinata, gone. Charles DeQueljoe, gone. And James and Mochtar 
Riady, gone. They left the country.
  All this is a brief discussion of one aspect of this. There are other 
aspects of this, but this is a brief glimpse into some of the serious 
allegations the Government Oversight Committee will have to look into. 
I emphasize the point with which I opened, just that at the core of 
this investigation is a vast series of matters which must be looked 
into. This will be one of the most important congressional 
investigations in history. I hope it is not obstructed by partisan 
tactics and politics. I hope with all my heart it is not. I think the 
American people expect as much.

  When I found out over the weekend that the FBI--and I did not know 
this before--had notified seven Members of Congress that they might be 
receiving laundered funds from a foreign country, mainly China, I was 
kind of shocked at that, because if they informed those seven Members 
of Congress, surely the FBI informed the White House. I have been led 
to believe by the FBI they informed the National Security Council. That 
being the case,

[[Page S2064]]

why are all these people having such access to our White House under 
those circumstances? As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as 
chairman of the committee that oversees the Justice Department and the 
FBI, naturally, I have to be concerned about it.
  Now, in addition to all of this, there are newer revelations coming 
out every day. I challenge the Government Affairs Committee to 
substantiate these allegations, to look into them.
  Let me just list some of the new revelations about the campaign 
finance scandals that were first reported after the Governmental 
Affairs Committee made a request of $6.5 million to investigate the 
scandal.
  First, Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes made a telephone call from 
Air Force One to warn of the wiring of the money to the Democratic 
National Committee and additional funds to nonprofit organizations. 
There is some indication they used Air Force One for the purpose of 
raising funds. I hope that is not the case.
  Second, questions have been raised concerning whether the White House 
database was created for official--as opposed to political--purposes, 
since it contained individuals' Social Security numbers, nicknames, 
relations to the First Family, pet political issues, and sometimes a 
photograph.
  Third, China may have sought to influence U.S. policy through the 
direction of foreign campaign contributions to the Democratic National 
Committee and actions taken at the Chinese embassy. It has been 
disclosed that Huang had contacts with the embassy while he worked at 
Commerce.
  Fourth, the NSC, National Security Council, at the White House 
provided the White House with warnings about Johnny Chung, who has ties 
to the Chinese Government, who was nonetheless subsequently granted 
access to the White House on numerous occasions, even though they knew 
about those ties.
  Fifth, Huang approached two business associates and offered to pay 
them $45,000 if they would take $250,000 from him and donate it in 
their own names to the Democratic National Committee. That is illegal.
  Sixth, the White House fired four staff members whose salaries were 
being paid by the Democratic National Committee while they were working 
at the White House. I don't know whether that has ever been done 
before, but it should not be done.
  There are other allegations, but let me just mention a couple of 
other things. The Democratic National Committee returned another $1.5 
million in illegal or questionable campaign funds that have to be 
looked into. The FBI warned, as I have said, seven Members of Congress 
that the Chinese Government was laundering money into the United 
States' election process. The FBI warned the National Security Council 
as well. We checked that today. And I have to tell you, just this one 
set of allegations could take more than a year or two just to get into 
them. It's going to take overseas travel; it's going to be very 
difficult with people taking the fifth amendment, with people possibly 
hiding documents and withholding them, and with just this one problem 
burgeoning and getting bigger every day.
  So I commend the Rules Committee and the majority leader for getting 
this thing off dead center and providing the money so the Governmental 
Affairs Committee can look into these matters and resolve them one way 
or the other.
  I wish some of these things were not true. I certainly don't wish 
anyone any harm. But, unfortunately, if you look at the facts that I 
have just given to you today, I think it's very unlikely that these 
matters are going to be disproven. But I hope they can be.
  It is going to be up to this Governmental Affairs Committee to look 
into it. I think that committee is very capable of doing this. The two 
leaders are among the best in the Senate. I expect them to do a 
terrific job. Senator Thompson, in particular, has had extensive 
experience because of his experience in the Watergate investigation and 
other investigations since then. He is an excellent lawyer, one of the 
best who has ever served in the Congress of the United States. I don't 
know anybody who will be more fair and more decent to the people who 
are being investigated. I think the same goes for the distinguished 
Senator from Ohio, Senator Glenn, for whom I have great friendship and 
fondness, and who I know will do an honest and decent job here.
  I don't think we should get so caught up in this context, in some of 
the issues that are being raised collaterally. I know the distinguished 
Senator from Ohio is not raising campaign finance reform to take the 
edge off of these issues.
  I don't want to get into that today, because I think that is 
irrelevant to what needs to be looked into by the Governmental Affairs 
Committee. Now they are going to have a charter to proceed and, I 
think, a fair amount of money to at least begin these investigations. 
Hopefully, these investigations can be completed within the time 
allotted. But, if not, I think the Senate is going to have to look at 
it and extend the time if this burgeons into what many think it will.
  With that, I thought some of these matters were important to bring 
out today in the beginning of this debate, so people realize this isn't 
just some little erstwhile decision by the Rules Committee; this is a 
very important, well-thought-out resolution of what has been a very 
difficult set of problems, which had a tendency to be greatly 
politicized over the last few weeks.

  I commend the chairman of the Rules Committee, the majority leader, 
and the others who have worked so hard on this important matter for the 
work they have done.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend and 
colleague, the senior Senator from Utah. Indeed, he points out, really, 
the tip of the iceberg here, in terms of the scope of the problem of 
all the issues that befall the Senate of the United States. There is 
plenty of work for everyone. I urge that it be done in accordance with 
the established rules and precedence of the U.S. Senate as to the 
allocation and responsibilities among the several committees.
  I certainly join in the Senator's observation about the chairman of 
Governmental Affairs, Senator Thompson, and my good friend, the senior 
Senator from Ohio. A note of irony here. The two of us used to do a lot 
of the investigation for the Senate Armed Services Committee a decade 
or so ago, and I thought we did it rather well. By the way, Mr. 
President, we didn't have any charter or much money, but we got the job 
done and did it quite well, for the wonderful men who preceded us on 
the Armed Services Committee, Senators Stennis, Tower, and Jackson. 
They gave us special tasks and we followed through.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, with all due respect to my colleagues--
and I have a lot of respect for my colleagues on the other side--I 
think the decision of the Rules Committee doesn't represent a step 
forward, it represents a great leap sideways.
  The Governmental Affairs Committee had voted unanimously to have a 
full inquiry. The inquiry certainly was going to focus on illegalities, 
but also on improprieties. That's the way we should proceed. The Rules 
Committee has stripped down the scope. And for people in the country 
who care fiercely about our getting away from auctions and back to 
elections, for people in the country who care about our getting away 
from what we have right now, which is pseudo-democracy, with big money 
dominating, back to authentic democracy, what the Rules Committee has 
done represents not a step forward, but a great leap sideways. It is a 
great leap sideways from an investigation that has to take place.
  Mr. President, I know that sometimes we don't know what we don't want 
to know. But, quite frankly, I don't believe that this Congress is 
going to be able to step sideways from a full investigation into all of 
the ways in which money has come to dominate politics today in the 
United States of America.
  Mr. President, my colleague Senator Glenn, at some point in his 
prepared remarks, said something like: Even what is legal quite often 
can be scandalous when you are looking at all the ways which money and 
politics interact today, and it really undercuts the whole idea of 
representative democracy. He is absolutely correct. We all

[[Page S2065]]

know that there are all sorts of examples of, No. 1, too much money 
being spent in these campaigns; No. 2, too much special interest 
access; we all know all about that; No. 3, too much of a money chase 
with Senators spending way too much time, more than any of us want to, 
raising money; No. 4, therefore, a system where regular people, 
ordinary citizens, which I do not use in a pejorative sense but in a 
positive way, don't even think they can play the game. That is what we 
are facing--money determining who gets to run, money determining who is 
considered a viable candidate, money determining the outcome of an 
election, money determining what issues are on the agenda, money 
determining which people are here lobbying every day and which are left 
out, and money determining the outcome. This really represents a 
corruption. But I am not talking about corruption as in the wrongdoing 
of individual officeholders. I am not here to bash any colleague on 
either side of the aisle. I am talking about a corruption which is 
systemwide. It is systemic. It is systemic corruption in the following 
sense: Too few people with this system we have right now, this rotten 
system we have right now, have far too much wealth, power, say, and 
access to decisionmakers, and the vast majority of people are left out 
of the loop. That is what is going on in the country.

  My colleagues want to narrow the scope of inquiry. The Rules 
Committee basically has made an end run around the Governmental Affairs 
Committee. The Governmental Affairs Committee at one point in time had 
a unanimous vote. What happened? What happened? At one time the 
Governmental Affairs Committee said we are going to be a reform 
committee, and we are going to look at illegal behavior--by the way, we 
should; I am not defending any of it--and, in addition, we are going to 
look at improper behavior, what is inappropriate, and if people have 
special-color stamps for big contributors, maybe that is not 
appropriate, and if people take folks on trips and give them access to 
Republicans and Democrats based on their being big contributors, maybe 
that is not right. If people have special meetings, special dinners 
with special access to Senators because they are big givers or heavy 
hitters or well connected, maybe that is not right. Or if there is 
evidence of people being invited to help write legislation because they 
are big givers, maybe that is not right. Or if there is a meeting with 
a business community or labor community and one party or the other 
says, ``We noticed you have made contributions to Members of the other 
party, and you had better not do that or you're not going to have 
access to us,'' that is not right. The list goes on and on.
  What is legal is scandalous. This whole system needs to be turned not 
upside down--it is upside down right now--but right side up. We need to 
get the big money out of politics. We need to get the big money out of 
politics. Anybody who believes in free and open elections, anybody who 
believes in political equality, anybody who believes that each person 
in the United States of America should count as one and no more than 
one, should be genuinely horrified with this system that we now have.
  Mr. President, I think--I hope I am proven wrong--but I think the 
action of the Rules Committee represents not a step forward but a great 
leap sideways. I have my doubts as to whether or not we are going to 
pass the reform that gets the big money out of politics. Given the 
scope now at least of Governmental Affairs, they are not going to be 
looking at soft money, they are not going to be looking at independent 
expenditure, they are not going to be looking at what the New York 
Times yesterday in their editorial called systematized influence 
peddling, which by the way is a bipartisan invention. And when we 
narrow the scope and don't look at all of the abuses --we can have 
abuses; they may not be illegal but they are abuses--it is arrogance. 
It is what people in the country hate. It is what destroys confidence 
on the part of people in our political process. When we don't look at 
any of that, how convenient it will be. Because, if we do not have a 
full inquiry into all of these abuses, into all of this improper 
behavior, into all of the ways in which legally big money has come to 
dominate politics, guess what? We don't make the case for reform.

  My concern is as follows: I think if we are not careful--on this 
point, even though I am in sharp policy disagreement with him, I think 
Senator Warner is the best when it comes to civility. I do not have any 
question about him at all when it comes to civility. But my concern is 
that we have to really be careful so that what doesn't happen here--is 
that you have just got people going after each other with accusations, 
throwing bombs at each other, and all of the rest--is that we don't get 
down to what should be the real business, which is when push comes to 
shove there is plenty of blame on all sides. I include myself as being 
a part of the problem. I want to be part of the solution. I have said, 
in my not so humble opinion, that everybody in public office should 
hate this system and want to change it because when you run for office 
you have to raise money. I just finished running for office, and I 
raised money. You call people. You call people to ask them to support 
you. We do that. You may believe--and I did believe and I do believe --
that the compelling necessity to raise money in these campaigns, given 
the current system, that it has never once influenced any position you 
have taken on any issue. You may believe that. But I tell you 
something. It doesn't look that way to people. Even if you are very 
honest--and I think my colleagues are--it doesn't look that way to 
people. We have to change this system.
  My real concern--and we will have an amendment or several amendments 
on the floor of the Senate starting tomorrow--is that what the Rules 
Committee has done is not moving us forward, but, as I say, it is a 
great step sideways. It is a great step sideways from full inquiry. It 
is a great step sideways so the Governmental Affairs Committee is not 
really looking at all of the abuses. It is a great step sideways in not 
looking at the full range of problems and not looking at all of the 
ways in which money dominates politics. Therefore, is it is a great 
step sideways from reform.
  I mean, ultimately here is the litmus test for all of us. Speeches 
can be made. I am making this speech right now on the floor. Words can 
be uttered. But really the litmus test is, are you or are you not, 
regardless of political party, interested in change? Are you interested 
in getting this big money out of politics? Are you interested in having 
these Senate races with less money being spent? Are you interested in 
elections as opposed to auctions? Are you interested in reducing 
special interests access to decisionmaking? Are you interested in a 
system where there is a level playing field for challengers? Yes, 
challengers who can challenge all of us who are incumbents whether we 
are Democrats or Republicans. I will tell you. I do not think most 
people in the country think we are interested in that. I do not think 
most people in the country think we are going to pass any significant 
reform. I think most people in the country think that this is as much 
of a debate between ins and outs as Democrats versus Republicans, and 
the ins don't want to change a system that is really a great benefit to 
the ins; that is to say, people who hold office.
  I am telling you that I think all of us are under a lot of scrutiny. 
And I think we had better figure out a way that we push through some 
significant reform, and it had better not be cosmetic, it had better 
not be one of these pieces of legislation that has a great acronym, a 
kind of made-for-Congress look; you know, sounds great, but as a matter 
of fact very little substance by way of really changing this system. I 
do not think we are heading in that direction. I think the Rules 
Committee decision takes us not forward, but again I think it 
represents, if not a retreat, the best I can say is it is a step 
sideways. That is why we will have an amendment or amendments on the 
floor demanding a full inquiry.
  By the way, Mr. President, in the debates that I have been in, the 
argument I usually have to do deal with is, ``Well, this is just some 
kind of convenient strategy because you don't want to focus on the 
illegalities.'' Of course, we do. But there is nothing mutually 
exclusive about saying get the facts about illegalities, then there is 
a full investigation and people are held accountable, but also look at 
the abuses, also look at the improprieties, also

[[Page S2066]]

look at the reform issue, also go down the path of changing the system 
for the better.
  Mr. President, that, I think, is the missing piece. That will be our 
challenge on the floor of the Senate, and that is the direction that we 
have to go in.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield for a 
question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to.
  Mr. WARNER. I listened very carefully to the Senator's remarks--
indeed, I thank him for his comments about the Senator from Virginia. I 
have also found the Senator from Minnesota to have the same 
characteristics although I disagree with him on a number of issues.
  As I listen to the Senator, it seems to me the Senator has pretty 
well made up his mind. The Senator has in mind already a framework of 
ideas and concepts that should be legislated by this body, am I not 
correct?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senator is correct that I can see a 
number of pieces of legislation, and I am going to outline some of them 
in a few moments, that I think would make sense, but I also am 
interested in the give-and-take with colleagues and fashioning 
compromise if I think it represents a step forward.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I understand that. But I think the Senator 
is pretty well of a mind to let us get on with the business. The 
Senator knows what has to be done in exchange with colleagues. Yet, the 
charter given by the Rules Committee for the additional funding, that 
sum of money on top of the normal budget for Government Affairs, goes 
to December 31. You are not going to wait until December 31 to 
hopefully get the legislation that you have resolved to have one way or 
another put on the floor, am I not correct? As a matter of fact, do I 
have reason to believe that you would like to see that legislation 
enacted before July 4 of this year?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator from Virginia is absolutely correct. I do 
think--if I could finish.
  Mr. WARNER. Go ahead.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. There is an A and a B part. A, I do not think people 
in the United States of America need to be convinced that there are 
huge problems, and I do not think they believe we do not already know 
what many of those problems are. It is not like all of a sudden we have 
to get all sorts of more and more investigation to know what we can do. 
But I think the investigation can be helpful if you have a full scope 
of inquiry. I think now where we have gone with the Government Affairs 
Committee is a step sideways, and I think we should take action.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on this issue I wish to engage my 
colleague. Clearly, in this resolution we have added additional money 
for the Rules Committee. If the Senator will examine the document which 
I referred to earlier, the authority and rules of the Senate, you see 
in here the clearest of jurisdiction given by the Senate over decades 
to the Rules Committee to do precisely this, the broadest type of 
authority. You do not find in here, incidentally, the same authority 
for Government Affairs. Why? Because they are charged with 
investigating violations of law. They are not a committee that 
originates legislation in this area. That is for the Rules Committee.
  So it is very clear to this Senator, and I think other Senators will 
soon recognize, that we are not sidestepping any issue, I say to my 
friend and colleague. We are simply adhering to the traditional 
guidelines, precedents and the written prescription for the committees 
of the Senate to perform their duties. I would urge the Senator to 
think about whether or not this is sidestepping, or, rather, using the 
rules and precedents of the Senate set forth in this volume and 
elsewhere with great clarity.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, to respond to the question--and I 
believe my colleague has asked a question--I do not know any other way 
to say this but to be straightforward and honest. The proof will be in 
the pudding. But I think once upon a time the Governmental Affairs 
Committee under the leadership of Senator Thompson was going to look at 
illegalities; it was going to look at improprieties; it was going to be 
a full scope of inquiry, and I think we were looking in the proper 
direction.
  With all due respect to my colleague, whom I respect, I think the 
majority of the Rules Committee is not interested in reform. I think 
the Rules Committee could very well be a burial ground for reform. Now, 
if I am wrong, I am pleased to be wrong. But right now, as I think 
about some of the people who are most active on the Rules Committee and 
some of the people I have heard speak on this, certainly some of them 
have made it crystal clear that they are not interested in any reform 
at all.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I can certainly answer just for this 
Senator.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes. And I am not talking about the Senator from 
Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I am in favor of reform, although I have not supported 
McCain-Feingold because I find there are serious questions as to 
whether the majority of that bill can be upheld in the Federal court 
system. That is my concern. And my concern is it totally ignores the 
very serious problem in this Senator's mind whereby labor unions compel 
their membership to donate by taking it out of their paycheck before it 
even gets to the union family.
  But anyway, I am not here to try to raise all the red hot irons. I 
want to keep, hopefully, this debate focused on this volume which lays 
out the authority of the several committees and the fairness of the 
resolution in this Senator's mind. I take umbrage, personal and 
otherwise, at the Senator's comment--he wants to generalize--that the 
Rules Committee is the burial ground for campaign finance reform. Other 
Senators can speak to their thoughts on this. But certainly for this 
Senator, I am very anxious to participate in reform. As I said earlier, 
I am working with the distinguished majority whip in trying to bring 
together a series of concepts which will withstand Federal court 
scrutiny, in our judgment, and which will move forward in substantial 
reform.
  So I say to my friend, I have listened very carefully to his 
comments, but I do urge him to look at this volume, which prescribes 
the duties of several committees, and to reflect once again on the 
fairness of the proposed resolution. We can move forward, Mr. 
President, with campaign finance reform irrespective of the timetable 
that is given, whether it is to the Rules Committee or the Governmental 
Affairs Committee. We can move forward. And that is a judgment call of 
the 100 Senators to work on collectively under their respective 
leaders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Virginia yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I think I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague from 
Virginia. I say that I felt I was just expressing my honest opinion 
about what I think is going to happen in the Rules Committee. And my 
comment was not aimed at my friend from Virginia.
  Mr. President, I will say one more time--and I will finish up because 
I see my colleague from Mississippi is here and I know my colleague 
from Mississippi is going to agree with everything I am saying so I am 
anxious for him to get the floor. But let me just finish up. Two 
points.
  One, I think it is problematical, I think it is suspect, I think it 
is weaving and bobbing and dancing around and a big step sideways to 
have moved the Government Affairs Committee away from what should have 
been the scope of the inquiry. We are going to come out here to the 
floor with language which is going to make it clear that we are serious 
about reform. And we know that what is key to reform is an 
investigation not only of illegalities--and you get into a definitional 
battle over that--but also what is improper, what is not appropriate. 
You name it. And also all of the ways in which money and politics have 
now interacted in such a way as to severely undercut the very idea of 
representative democracy and really undercut the trust people have in 
our political process. That is No. 1.
  No. 2. I just think people in the country are scratching their heads 
and saying, these folks in the Senate, they are saying that they 
actually need a lot of time to study all of these problems and they do 
not want to make a commitment to any date to bring up any piece

[[Page S2067]]

of campaign reform legislation; permit us to be a little skeptical. We 
have this idea that politicians are pretty good at delay, and they are 
pretty good at sidestepping issues, and they are pretty good at not 
getting down to the work; permit us to be a little skeptical.
  How much more do people need to know about abuses, improprieties or 
illegalities in order to make some change? Many of us, my colleague is 
right, are pushing for some action. Now, I am not arrogant enough to 
say that one person has all the ideas about what should be done, but I 
do get very concerned about sidestepping here, narrowing the scope of 
inquiry here, delaying here and maybe, just maybe, at the very end 
laboring mightily and producing a mouse--hardly any kind of reform. I 
want to tell you, if we do that, people in the country should hold us 
accountable.

  I think that my colleagues, some colleagues, fail to make a 
distinction. I could be wrong about this. But I am coming to believe 
that every day there is a headline about something new. I think people 
read it and they just quickly go on to other stories. I think part of 
the reason is, unfortunately, people's expectations are not very high, 
and that should trouble all of us. But at the very core, what is inside 
of people in this country, is we do not like this system at all. We do 
not feel as though we are well represented. We feel ripped off and we 
want you to change it.
  I would say to my colleagues--yes, we talked about McCain-Feingold. I 
support McCain-Feingold. I worked with both Senators from the word go. 
I think it is an important, significant reform effort.
  If I had my way I would go the ``Maine option,'' legislation which 
really gets the interested money and private money out; a major 
overhaul of the system. If not, Senator Cochran and I had an 
opportunity to be at a show last night and I said, ``Look, I will come 
to the floor with an amendment just to prohibit soft money.'' We are 
going to take action. There are a variety of different approaches and 
there are other things that can be done that represent reform. But I 
say to my colleagues, ultimately it gets down to this. We have to 
dramatically reduce the amount of money that is spent. We have to 
dramatically reduce the influence of interested dollars and special 
interest access to decisionmakers. We have to dramatically reduce this 
money chase. And we have to move toward something that approximates, 
more or less, a level playing field so we have competitive elections 
and so challengers have a chance against incumbents.
  If we do not do that, we have not done the job. I think people are 
going to hold us to that standard. So we might be debating kind of the 
process we are going through to get to the end. But we need to get 
there together at the end.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for just one moment?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield to my distinguished chairman.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think the record should reflect our 
distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Kentucky, has just 
made a statement with regard to his future. Otherwise he would be here 
today, participating in this debate. Senator Ford returned home to make 
a very important statement regarding his future. I know my colleague 
from Ohio has looked over that statement in which he has indicated that 
he no longer is going to pursue a career in the U.S. Senate, but is to 
return to greener fields. I just thought we should put that in the 
Record, as to his absence here today.
  Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Yes. I want to praise Senator Ford, too. But we set 
aside this time for debate on the resolution. We had 2 hours in morning 
business and we will have additional morning business time, I am sure, 
later. I hope we could debate the resolution, but I will be happy to 
yield to the distinguished Senator from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. I thank my friend from Mississippi. I just want to 
reinforce what the Senator from Virginia just said. Senator Ford, as 
ranking minority member on the Rules Committee, would normally be on 
the floor, managing this bill. Since I had been ranking minority member 
over at Governmental Affairs, which is involved with this very deeply, 
he asked me to take his place here today. I should have noted that at 
the beginning of the session today, before I made my speech.
  But he will be missed. I was sorry to see my good friend, Wendell 
Ford, who came here the same time I did, make a decision to not run 
again. I know some of the pangs of going through that decision, having 
gone through those pangs myself just a short time ago. And I am sure I 
will want to say more tomorrow, but that is the reason he is not here 
floor-managing the bill.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think we should make it clear at the 
outset that those of us who are supporting this resolution as reported 
by the Rules Committee favor looking very carefully at our current 
campaign laws. The Federal Election Campaign Act sets out some very 
strict rules and guidelines and laws with respect to how our Federal 
election campaigns ought to be conducted. Some of us agree that those 
laws can be improved and are in favor of making changes. For example, I 
think one of the clear deficiencies in current law is the failure to 
require disclosure from all of those who spend money in the Federal 
election campaign process. There is no law against participating. We 
like to have full participation by all American citizens, by all of 
those who are eligible to vote in our country, and we need to continue 
to examine the process to see if we are doing a good enough job of 
trying to get everybody's involvement in the process. So there are a 
lot of things that we can do to improve the system.
  But I hope that our friends who are urging immediate vote on a single 
proposal, certainly ought to allow a full debate to occur and a free 
exchange of ideas. This Committee on Rules has had a number of hearings 
under the leadership of the distinguished Senator from Virginia on this 
subject. And in this resolution there is a provision that further 
campaign reform issues will be examined by the Rules Committee, in the 
context of this resolution on this investigation.
  Having said that, I think we do need to support, though, the passage 
of this resolution now so investigation can move forward. The 
Governmental Affairs Committee is charged under this resolution with 
responsibility of conducting an investigation into illegal activities 
surrounding the 1996 election campaigns. We do not single out the 
President's reelection campaign. We say the campaigns that were 
conducted in 1996, the challenge of the Republican candidate, the 
campaigns of all Members of Congress, the campaigns of those Senators 
who were up in the last cycle--all are to be the subject of the 
investigation by the Governmental Affairs Committee into illegal 
activities.
  Further, if any Senator is found to have engaged in illegal activity, 
that is to be directly referred to the Ethics Committee for prompt 
attention and review.
  What are these facts that support and are the basis for the 
resolution? I think it is important for us to look at what the facts 
are, to look at what the allegations are, some of the charges that have 
been made. One of the individuals who was mentioned by the Senator from 
Utah is John Huang. It is said by reports that he raised more than $3.4 
million for the Democratic National Committee. Where did this money 
come from? That is a fair question. That is a very legitimate question, 
and it ought to be answered by this investigation.
  John Huang was given a security clearance while he was still working 
for a private enterprise, the Lippo Group, and before he started to 
work at the Department of Commerce. A legitimate inquiry by this 
investigation committee is: Why did he get a security clearance before 
starting a job with the Department of Commerce? And he kept his 
security clearance, even after he left the Department of Commerce and 
went to work for the Democratic National Committee. Another legitimate 
inquiry is: Why did

[[Page S2068]]

someone who is a full-time fundraiser for the Democratic National 
Committee need a security clearance? Or why was he permitted to have a 
security clearance?
  During his tenure with the Commerce Department and at the Democratic 
National Committee, he had several visits with officials of the Embassy 
of the People's Republic of China. A legitimate inquiry: What were the 
purposes of these visits? Which Chinese officials at the Embassy did he 
visit and why?
  Another person who was mentioned by Senator Hatch, as involved in the 
reports and who was involved actively in the election campaign of 1996, 
is Johnny Chung. Johnny Chung is said to have donated a total of 
$366,000 to the Democratic National Committee. A legitimate inquiry: 
Where did Chung get this money? Another reported fact: Johnny Chung 
visited the White House more than 50 times, despite the fact that the 
National Security Council staff had issued a memo describing him as a 
hustler, and warning officials at the White House of that. Why did 
Johnny Chung have such free access to the White House? That is a 
legitimate inquiry. Who did he see when he went to the White House on 
these occasions, and for what purpose? One day, during a radio address 
by the President of the United States, Johnny Chung brought six Chinese 
officials with him to be spectators, and to witness the President's 
radio address, 2 days after giving a $50,000 check to a senior White 
House official to pass on to the Democratic National Committee.
  Charlie Trie is another person who has been mentioned today. Charlie 
Trie was a fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee and the 
Clinton's legal defense fund. He is said to have raised more than 
$600,000. What were the sources of these donations? What did he expect 
in return, if anything? Charlie Trie visited the White House more than 
23 times. Who did he see when he was there? What were the purposes of 
his visits? Charlie Trie arranged to have Wang Jun, a Chinese arms 
dealer, attend a White House event with the President.
  These are legitimate subjects of inquiry into an investigation into 
possible illegal conduct in connection with the 1996 Presidential 
election campaign. It seems to me that these are not only questionable 
activities that raise questions about purposes of fundraising, but 
connections with a foreign government which was very actively involved 
in developing new trade relations with our country, in testing our 
relationship with other countries in that region of the world, and just 
this past weekend there were new revelations in connection with the 
fact that the Chinese Government was said, by our own Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, to be targeting Members of Congress, to influence for 
the purpose of enhancing China's position with respect to legislation 
and national policy here in the United States.

  The question that is legitimate for us to undertake to answer in this 
investigation is what connection do these associates of the Democratic 
National Committee or the President--John Huang, Charlie Trie, Johnny 
Chung, and others--have with this effort by the Chinese, if any? These 
are legitimate inquiries.
  Has there been a revelation or a discussion or a briefing at the 
White House by the FBI on these same subjects? And when did those 
briefings occur? Before these people were given free access to the 
White House? Or later? Or when?
  Did these activities on the part of the Chinese Government become 
common knowledge at the White House? If they did, who knew about it? 
Somebody is bound to have known about it. You don't have this kind of 
seemingly unlimited access with high-level officials in our 
administration without somebody knowing why they were there.
  What were their interests? One, of course, was a Department of 
Commerce official interested in trade, organizing trade missions all 
around the country. But not only that, Mr. President, let me show you a 
chart, for the purpose of information for Senators, reflecting 
information that may be close as a circle of interest.
  Here we have the three persons I was talking about where there is 
clear evidence of a lot of fundraising activity, a lot of access with 
the White House and with top officials in the administration, one 
working at the Department of Commerce. This is John Huang, who was 
former top U.S. Lippo executive. Lippo is the Indonesian conglomerate 
already described by Senator Hatch and others. He was a top Democratic 
National Committee fundraiser. He had a top-secret security clearance 
at Commerce--even before, we have now learned--and had almost unlimited 
White House access.
  Johnny Chung visited the White House at least 50 times, brought 
several Communist Party officials, Chinese Government officials, to the 
White House, and maintains business relationships in China.
  Charlie Trie, Little Rock restaurateur, has visited the White House 
from 20 to 30 times; owns a home and restaurant in Beijing.
  All three participated in very productive fundraising activities for 
the Democratic National Committee or the President's legal expense 
fund. Approximately $4.5 million was raised by these three individuals 
for the Democratic National Committee. The Democratic National 
Committee said it is returning $2.2 million of those contributions. For 
the President's legal expense fund, Charlie Trie raised $639,000, all 
now ruled by the lawyers as returnable and should be returned.
  Then look at this. These are interesting connections as well. Does 
this form a link, the link to China that gets the foreign government 
involved in our election process? It seems to me clearly to indicate a 
reason to go forward immediately with the passage of this resolution 
and to go forward with this investigation to find out what the facts 
are. But here are what some of the allegations are in the reported 
facts that we can verify with an investigation.
  Wang Jun, the foreign arms dealer who was brought to the White House, 
chairman of Poly Technologies, a Chinese arms manufacturer. He is also 
chairman of CITIC, which is the largest state-run business in China. He 
visited the White House on February 6, 1996, as a guest of Charlie 
Trie.
  Ng Lap Seng, a member of CPPCC. This is the Chinese Government's 
national advisory board. He has multiple business interests in China, 
Hong Kong, and Macao. He is partners with Charlie Trie in San Kin Yip 
International Trading Co.
  And the Lippo Group, which was discussed in some detail by Senator 
Hatch. Mochtar and James Riady are the family members who have large 
interests, if not controlling interests, in the Lippo Group. Lippo has 
vast business interests in China, business partners with China 
Resources, a Chinese Government-owned entity.
  The CP Group, this is the largest foreign investor in China, $2 
billion investment, 130 joint ventures. Chairman Dhanin serves as 
economic adviser to the Chinese Government. Dhanin visited with 
President Clinton in the White House on June 18, 1996, arranged by 
Pauline Kanchanalak through John Huang.
  The connections are with Huang, Chung, and Trie with investors, 
leading industrialists in China, in Indonesia, all with Chinese ties, 
all with very big stakes in the outcome of Government policies here in 
the United States and legislation here in the United States, and, 
apparently, Members of Congress were selected to be supported or 
encouraged or lobbied, or whatever happened, and we don't know what 
happened. We don't know if anything happened, but we need to find out 
what steps were taken to try to influence decisions in this Government 
by the foreign government.
  The question about whether passing a bill to reform campaign finance 
law cures all that, of course, begs the question. That is not the 
question, and it is certainly not the answer. The question is, What are 
the illegal activities that are involved in these transactions, if any? 
That is not only an appropriate area for inquiry by this U.S. Senate, 
it is mandatory, it is a duty, it is a mandatory responsibility, it is 
a duty we have.
  So I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution. It is a product of 
an effort to try to resolve differences that some on the other side of 
the aisle have had with the effort that we initiated in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee to put together a resolution to define 
scope and a budget and a process.
  But I have confidence, Mr. President, in the chairman and the ranking

[[Page S2069]]

Democratic member, Senator Thompson and Senator Glenn, who are totally 
dedicated, in my view, to a fair but full inquiry of the allegations 
that are apparent and are begging to be investigated so that we can 
find out what the facts are.
  If laws need to be changed, we can recommend changes in the law. If 
we simply need to disclose whether people are innocent of the charges 
that have been made against them, that is an important part of the 
responsibility, too. To clear those whose names may have been tarnished 
by published reports that we have seen in the newspapers and heard in 
the broadcast media, that is part of the obligation of this committee 
as well, which I think will be taken very, very seriously.
  So I am hopeful that the Senate will approve the resolution, Mr. 
President. I congratulate the chairman for his leadership in this.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague.
  We are particularly fortunate on the Rules Committee to have a very 
significant number of senior colleagues, of which my good friend, the 
senior Senator from Mississippi, is one. And three members of the Rules 
Committee, three who voted for this resolution, are also members of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee. That, in my judgment, is a very, very 
important aspect of this debate. They looked at it from both 
perspectives. They have counseled this chairman as well as others on 
the committee. I think that goes a long way to say that this was a 
resolution carefully crafted and thoughtfully arrived at. I thank my 
dear friend.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise not for a lengthy statement here, 
but just to say that most of the remarks on the other side of the aisle 
this afternoon have been involved with ``The China Link,'' as it is 
called on the diagram I see on the other side right now, and with the 
China connection, with Mr. Huang, Mr. Chung, Mr. Trie, and what may 
have happened.
  I am not quite sure what relevance all these things have to do with 
S. 39 that is before us on the floor now and which we are debating. 
Because everyone is agreed, everyone I know on the Rules Committee, the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, the White House, the President, 
everybody is agreed that some things went awry in this area. And even 
the President has said, yes, he wants to see this brought out. Let us 
find out what happened. Let us correct it. Let us cure it and let us 
get on with it.
  I do not know whether our debate here on the floor is going to take 
up time pushing this idea that somehow, or implying at least, that we 
are trying to avoid some sort of discussion or the President is trying 
to avoid some kind of discussion on Huang, Trie, and others, because I 
do not think that is the case. I know the Justice Department, as I 
understand it--and this is just from news reports; I have not talked to 
the people over there--but as I understand it, they have 25 FBI agents 
assigned to investigate exactly this matter that we are talking about 
on the floor this afternoon. So if we need to, on the Governmental 
Affairs Committee, get into those areas because they involve, 
obviously, allegations of illegality, we will do so.
  So I just want to make that comment that we are united, I think, in 
the Senate on both sides of the aisle and down to Pennsylvania Avenue 
to the White House on finding out what happened with Mr. Huang, Mr. 
Chung, and Mr. Trie, and bring that information out so we can correct 
whatever the situation was or get new legislation if that is needed to 
correct it. So we are all committed to that. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is imperative that the public have a 
full picture of the questionable campaign fundraising practices which 
have risen to the surface in such quantity. These practices are not the 
sole domain of one party. Both parties raise money in comparable ways. 
Republican practices as well as Democratic practices must be 
investigated and made public. Otherwise, there is going to be no 
confidence and no credibility in this investigation. Unless we have an 
investigation into fundraising abuses by both parties, the committee's 
investigation--and here I am talking about the Governmental Affairs 
Committee's investigation--will turn into a partisan squabble.

  Both Democratic and Republican activities at both ends of 
Pennsylvania Avenue must be investigated, and then let the chips fall 
where they may. There must be a full and thorough investigation into 
the campaign finance practices of the last election, and to the extent 
practices of earlier elections shed light on current practices or set 
the context for our consideration of current practices, the 
Governmental Affairs Committee should include and voted to include 
those election cycles in our investigation as well. Whatever we do in 
this investigation will also hopefully contribute to the enactment of 
campaign finance reform.
  With those goals in mind, the members of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee met and together unanimously decided on language relative to 
the scope of this investigation. Members on both sides of the aisle 
were satisfied with the result and with the sense of accomplishment 
that we felt. Senator Glenn said just before the vote on the scope 
resolution:

       I think we have made really a lot of progress in this 
     regard. . . . I think this sets down in language what we had 
     talked about, what you, Senator Thompson had indicated you 
     were for, what we were for.

  And Senator Lieberman described it as ``an extraordinarily positive 
piece of work.''
  That agreed-upon scope in the Governmental Affairs Committee was not 
an expansion of Chairman Thompson's statement of scope which he made on 
the Senate floor on January 28 when he announced his plans for the 
committee's investigation. It was the embodiment, for all practical 
purposes, of what Senator Thompson had described in his floor 
statement. Senator Thompson said at that time:

       The investigation that we are now undertaking is neither a 
     criminal investigation nor a seminar on campaign finance 
     reform, although it involves elements of both.

  And continuing, Senator Thompson said:

       Based on the information before us at this time, it is an 
     inquiry into illegal and improper campaign finance activity 
     in the 1996 Presidential campaign and related activities. . . 
     . Now certainly our work will include any improper activities 
     by Republicans, Democrats or other political partisans. . . . 
     We are investigating activities here, not political parties.

  We had a disagreement over how much the investigation would cost, but 
we did not have a disagreement over what the scope should be. We had a 
disagreement over the length of the investigation. Democrats on the 
committee thought we should have a goal for an end date so that we 
could responsibly, and in a reasonable amount of time, report to the 
Senate on our findings and conclusions. We thought, looking back at 
previous investigations, that a year would be appropriate. The 
congressional investigation into Watergate lasted just over a year. And 
we thought an end date as well as the funding could always be adjusted 
if the public interest warranted an extension depending upon the state 
of the evidence at the time the agreed-upon end date was reached.
  We had also hoped for, and actually expected, progress on working out 
bipartisan procedures for the conduct of the investigation. The 
committee directed the staff to work on an agreement on procedures to 
ensure that there was bipartisan access to witnesses, documents and 
depositions.
  So that's where we were after the last Governmental Affairs Committee 
meeting. We had a unanimously agreed-upon scope resolution, progress on 
bipartisan procedures, and differences over money and length of time. 
How did we get to where we are today? Well, this whole thing took a 
dramatic detour to, and then a dramatic detour in, the Rules Committee.

  Republican members of the Rules Committee decided to narrow the 
unanimously adopted scope of the committee investigation. Initially, 
some of the Rules Committee wanted to leave Congress out of the 
investigation altogether. But they soon realized that that would not 
pass muster with the

[[Page S2070]]

media or with the American people. So they concocted a formulation, 
something that made them look like they were covering Congress but, in 
effect, leaving out the most sensitive areas to Members: soft money and 
independent expenditures. Republicans raised much more soft money than 
Democrats, and outspent Democrats 10 to 1 in independent expenditures.
  The Rules Committee majority no doubt thought that if they could get 
the Senate to strike the word ``improper'' from the Governmental 
Affairs Committee jurisdiction and leave the scope covering only 
illegal activity, then they could deflect or avoid the possible 
resulting pressure to pass campaign finance reform. I have no doubt 
that that was the goal of many members of the Rules Committee--to 
deflect or avoid pressure to pass campaign finance reform.
  That pressure would come from the bipartisan investigation in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee not only into what is illegal but into 
what should be illegal, what is improper, to what has an odor about it, 
to what is excessive. That is what the Governmental Affairs Committee, 
on a bipartisan basis, wanted to look at. Not just as to what was 
illegal technically but as to what we should consider as a legislative 
body to make illegal.
  Now, the Rules Committee decided to put in language about referring 
allegations of illegal conduct against Members to the Ethics Committee 
and referred the issue of soft money and independent expenditures, and 
those are the 800-pound gorillas of campaign finance in the 1990's. 
Soft money, independent expenditures currently--the legal portion of 
those activities--were referred to the Rules Committee. But it is the 
Rules Committee whose majority does not want the Governmental Affairs 
Committee to have a full-blown investigation in the first place.
  Now, that is where we are. The Rules Committee is proposing to this 
Senate that a unanimously agreed upon resolution of a standing 
committee of this body to investigate improper activity should not be 
permitted. Now, I do not know whether this has been done before in the 
history of this body where you have a committee with jurisdiction which 
votes unanimously on an investigation, which is then denied that 
investigation by the Rules Committee. Perhaps it has happened before, I 
do not know. I have asked the Democratic staff on the Rules Committee 
if they know of any precedent for this. They do not know of any.
  We are not talking about reducing the funding. Here we are talking 
about limiting the scope of an investigation within the jurisdiction of 
a standing committee of this body, unanimously voted upon by that 
standing committee. Now, anybody who has been following this sad story 
will see through it because I do not think, again--and I will make this 
challenge to my dear friend from Virginia, Senator Warner, and he is my 
dear friend; I will make this challenge to him, because we should know 
whether or not the Rules Committee has ever in this way limited the 
scope of an investigation unanimously voted on by a standing committee 
of this body.
  We are not talking about limiting the money. We are talking about 
saying you may not investigate improper activity. That is clearly 
within the jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs Committee. There is 
no doubt that the Governmental Affairs Committee has jurisdiction to 
look into improper activities of the kind laid out in our full-scope 
resolution.
  By the way, I have no doubt that the Rules Committee has jurisdiction 
to do what it has decided it wants to do, as well, that that 
jurisdiction is not exclusive. The Governmental Affairs Committee has 
the jurisdiction. There is nothing improper about its jurisdiction. For 
the Rules Committee to tell a standing committee of this body you may 
not look into improper activity within your jurisdiction, I believe, is 
unprecedented. If it has a precedent, then it seems to me this body 
ought to hear about it from the Rules Committee.
  Again, to make clear what we are not talking about, we are not 
talking about reducing the funding, and we are not talking about the 
question of whether the Rules Committee has jurisdiction, as well, 
because clearly they have both jurisdiction to reduce the funds and to 
take up an issue themselves. What we are talking about is something 
that is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee and unanimously adopted by the Governmental Affairs 
Committee.
  Now, in setting aside the Governmental Affairs Committee resolution, 
the Rules Committee and the resolution before the Senate struck the 
very key word ``improper.'' Here is what the unanimously passed 
resolution of the Governmental Affairs Committee said:

       The [committee] shall conduct a Special Investigation into 
     illegal or improper fundraising and spending practices in the 
     1996 Federal election campaigns. . .

  Here is what the Rules Committee substitute says:

       The additional funds authorized by this section are for the 
     sole purpose of conducting an investigation of illegal 
     activities in connection with 1996 Federal election 
     campaigns.''

  The key word missing from the Rules Committee substitute is the word 
``improper.''
  What they are restricting us to investigate on the Governmental 
Affairs Committee is illegal activities. We are barred from using these 
special funds--and I emphasize it is these special funds which are at 
issue--from investigating improper activities. If the Rules Committee 
version of this resolution passes, and I hope it will not, the Senate 
would go on record as affirmatively denying an investigative committee 
of the Senate from investigating improper campaign activities. I think 
that is a precedent which this body should reject on a bipartisan basis 
because it puts us in the exact wrong direction in terms of what this 
Nation wants us to do, which is to both look at illegal as well as 
improper practices.
  Now, some people say, what about the illegal practices which have 
been alleged. My answer to that is we ought to look at it even though 
that is usually left to prosecutorial bodies and courts. We ought to 
look at illegal activities. We should not shy away from that--illegal 
activities by whomever. But we surely should look as well at improper 
activities, which activities, at least arguably, should be made 
illegal.
  We are also doing something else in addition to restricting us from 
looking at the soft underbelly of campaign financing, which is soft 
money, we are also risking the very investigation of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee, because the legislative purpose, which is to change 
the laws, is being put into question by the restriction of the Rules 
Committee. If we could only look at illegal activity, things already 
illegal, and we cannot look at things which arguably should be made 
illegal, then the question of legislative purpose arises. That is what 
the courts have ruled must exist before subpoenas can be enforced.
  A Federal district court in the Icardi case said that:

       The court does hold that if the committee is not pursuing a 
     bona fide legislative purpose when it secures the testimony 
     of any witness, it is not acting as a ``competent tribunal'' 
     even though that very testimony be relevant to a matter which 
     could be the subject of a valid legislative investigation . . 
     .

  So the resolution that is proposed by the Rules Committee substitute 
not only strikes the key word ``improper'' that would give the 
Governmental Affairs Committee the direct authority to investigate 
practices that are now legal but should be made illegal--because that 
is what the word improper allows us to do. What the substitute 
resolution of the Rules Committee does is fails to include any 
reference whatever to a legislative purpose. In this case, campaign 
finance reform. The silence on this point is deafening, and I am afraid 
the silence on this point, the removal of the word ``improper'' is also 
going to jeopardize the investigation which is left into the 
jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs Committee.
  Finally, I want to read one portion of the committee report of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee that supports the broader scope 
resolution which had been unanimously adopted by the Governmental 
Affairs Committee. This is what we said, Democrats, Republicans, 
unanimously. Or this is what the committee report, more accurately, the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, says about the broad scope resolution:

       The allegations that have been made are very serious and go 
     to the fundamental

[[Page S2071]]

     workings of our democratic government. The faith of the 
     people in their government and in their system of government 
     is at risk. Our Constitution is premised on the fallibility 
     of human enterprises, including governments. The founders of 
     this Republic 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. They believed, correctly, that this process makes 
     America stronger, not weaker. We must have the same faith.

  And then the committee report of the Governmental Affairs Committee 
says the following:

       These allegations of improper activities must be 
     investigated. The committee intends to investigate 
     allegations of improper activities by all, Republicans, 
     Democrats, or other political partisans. It will investigate 
     specific activities, not on the political party against which 
     the allegations are made.

  The Senate, if it adopts the Rules Committee resolution, will 
undermine the solid, bipartisan work of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee. A unanimously adopted resolution of that committee that has 
jurisdiction to investigate improper activities will be undermined by, 
instead, a partisan resolution of the Rules Committee, adopted on a 
partisan vote, which narrows the scope of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee on the use of these special funds.
  So, again, while my friend from the Rules Committee, the chairman, is 
here, let me repeat one point. There is no doubt that the Rules 
Committee has jurisdiction to entertain the kind of hearings that it is 
going to have. There is no doubt that the Rules Committee can reduce 
the funding that has been provided. But I don't know of--and I welcome 
my friend correcting me if I am wrong--a precedent where the Rules 
Committee has told a committee of jurisdiction in this body which 
unanimously adopts a resolution to investigate an activity that it may 
not do so with the funds that are appropriate or allocated. I know that 
we can use other funds for that purpose. But we are talking here about 
a special funding resolution and a unanimously adopted, bipartisan 
resolution of the Governmental Affairs Committee to investigate 
something within its jurisdiction. For the Rules Committee to remove 
the word ``improper,'' it seems to me is unprecedented and unwise, 
given the tremendous necessity to change the way campaign financing is 
done in this country.
  I yield the floor and would be happy to respond if my friend from 
Virginia, the chairman of the Rules Committee, desires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague. Since he came to the 
Senate, I have valued his views greatly and his friendship a good deal 
more. Although we differ from time to time, let us see if we can't come 
to some fundamental understanding here. Has the Senator had an 
opportunity to review the document, which I referred to today, the 
``Authority of the Rules of the Senate on Committees?'' If not, I urge 
that the Senator take a little time to look through it. I read it as 
saying very clearly, that the broadest jurisdiction possible is in the 
Rules Committee to look into the subject before us--namely, campaign 
finance reform, campaign finance violations, the whole generic subject. 
It is silent with respect to the Governmental Affairs Committee. Most 
respectfully, it is silent on that subject.
  The distinguished Governmental Affairs Committee is not a legislative 
committee in the context of this subject. I wonder if the colleague 
will take the microphone and we can have a colloquy. The first question 
is--you have not had a chance, but you will look at this?
  Mr. LEVIN. That is correct, and we would be happy to.
  Mr. WARNER. Second, you agree that Governmental Affairs is not a 
legislative committee.
  Mr. LEVIN. The investigative jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee was the question I directed to my friend.
  Mr. WARNER. I want to take it step by step. But as far as 
legislation, to the extent that the Senate hopefully will adopt 
legislation on campaign finance reform and campaign finance violations, 
this Senator is going to--and has and will continue to--work vigorously 
toward that goal. At the current time, the distinguished majority 
leader has designated the majority whip to head a task force on this 
side of the aisle, and I am a part of that. I can assure we are working 
diligently. So that's the legislative action.

  The second point I wish to make is, I don't know of anything done by 
the Rules Committee in this particular resolution, or in any other 
thing the Rules Committee has done, which would deter the Senate or 
forestall the Senate from taking up campaign finance reform whenever 
the concurrence as to the timing comes with the distinguished majority 
leader and the minority leader. That is traditionally the function of 
those two leaders. That is a subject that is being actively discussed 
between the leaders. So nothing we have done deters that. That is a 
separate timing, a separate subject.
  But we see when we pick up the papers, there is something new on this 
subject every day. It is the most distressing period I have ever seen.
  Mr. GLENN. Will my friend yield?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes. This is a colloquy. Go ahead.
  Mr. GLENN. I thank my friend. I reply that the Governmental Affairs 
Committee has more broad jurisdiction on investigations than any 
committee here. It doesn't mean that we do those things legislatively 
then, but we are a committee that does investigations. We have done 
broad investigations in drug matters, for instance, and investigations 
and hearings regarding that. Yet, we turn that legislation over, we 
turn our information over to other people to form the legislative 
background they need to bring it here to the Senate.
  We have conducted hearings on espionage in the past, and we certainly 
don't have authority in those areas. But we are given broad 
investigative powers and staff and money to look into these things as 
part of our regular jurisdiction.
  This committee was known through the years as a committee that took 
on organized crime. It was known back in those days, originally, as the 
Truman committee, PSI subcommittee that we have, and the McClellan 
subcommittee. We took on organized crime. But we didn't do the 
legislative matters, the legislating that had to be done. We turned the 
results over to other committees.
  More recently, we have looked at fraudulent health programs involving 
the District of Columbia here and West Virginia and, I believe, part of 
Virginia, also. We didn't propose to do the legislation in those areas. 
For many years, I have personally been as involved as anybody in the 
Senate on matters regarding nuclear nonproliferation. Yet, primarily, 
that was not something we had to go ahead and put legislation in on, 
although I did use that to put legislation in many years ago. We have 
had investigations on terrorism, and it fell to other people to have 
the legislation.
  Mr. WARNER. I readily accede to all this history, which is important. 
Indeed the Senator has been on the committee for 22 years, has he not?
  Mr. GLENN. I have indeed.
  Mr. WARNER. I am just pointing out that this resolution goes to the 
authority to investigate until December 31. Is the Senator suggesting 
that we are going to wait in the Senate until December 31 to review a 
final proposal on campaign finance reform? I hope not.
  Mr. GLENN. I respond to my friend, no.
  Mr. WARNER. There is a clear separation between the two trains that 
are moving--your investigation, which is important, and campaign 
finance reform, which, in my judgment, is equally as important. They 
are on different tracks.
  Mr. LEVIN. Can I ask a factual question?
  Mr. WARNER. The previous speaker said this Rules Committee resolution 
sidetracked campaign finance reform. I took serious question with him 
on that.
  Mr. LEVIN. I think that is the likely outcome. We will know that. Is 
my friend from Virginia suggesting that the Governmental Affairs 
Committee does not have jurisdiction to investigate improper campaign 
activities?

  Mr. WARNER. I didn't say that, Mr. President. The authority is very 
clear with respect to the Rules Committee, but it is less clear with 
Governmental Affairs. If the Senator sees a passage which I have 
missed--it is rather

[[Page S2072]]

lengthy--but it is less clear, in my judgment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Just to clarify the colloquy, I heard my friend say the 
committee can use regular funding to look into improper activity.
  Mr. WARNER. That was my next point.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is there any doubt that the committee has jurisdiction to 
look into improper activities under its broad jurisdiction--quoting the 
Governmental Affairs Committee jurisdiction--``to have the duty to 
study the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of all agencies and 
departments of Government, which would include the Federal Elections 
Committee.''
  My question of the Rules Committee chair is, is there any question 
about the jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs Committee to 
investigate the propriety of campaign financing and fundraising? Is 
there some doubt about that?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are coming to a very important point, 
and I was going to raise that because I had this in my hand at the time 
I yielded for the colloquy with the Senator from Ohio. Senate 
Resolution 54, the omnibus resolution of the Rules Committee for all 
committees, under which $4.533 million was allocated to the 
Governmental Affairs Committee--there is nothing in here respecting 
exactly how it will go about it. That is a matter that is up to the 
collective wisdom of the members of the committee under the leadership 
of the very fine chairman, and, indeed, equally fine ranking member. 
What the Rules Committee decided is, if you wish to have additional 
funds, that is within the province of the Rules Committee to say that 
those funds will be for a specific purpose, and that purpose being--we 
know exactly what it is. But it would seem to me that that action by 
the Rules Committee, subject to whatever the Senate does in working its 
will on this resolution--however this resolution emerges--hopefully, in 
my judgment, will emerge intact. There may be a technical change here 
or there. That should certainly be a precedent to the members of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee--a sort of guidepost as to how 
collectively, exercising the majority vote in this, the members should 
expend all the funds, in my judgment.

  Mr. LEVIN. The collective wisdom of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, unanimously adopted, is that we should look at both illegal 
and improper activities. I do not think there is a slightest doubt that 
both of those are within the investigative jurisdiction of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee. And nothing my friend from Virginia 
here today says anything to the contrary. Both illegal and improper 
activities are within the investigative jurisdiction of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee. And here we have a Rules Committee on a 
partisan vote saying to a committee of jurisdiction that has 
jurisdiction to investigate both illegal and improper activity: 
``Sorry. This additional funding can only be used on what is already 
illegal. You may not investigate activities which maybe should be made 
illegal.'' I believe that is unprecedented. I am not saying the Rules 
Committee cannot do that. I am saying it is unprecedented. I believe it 
is unwise for the Rules Committee to do that institutionally. More 
importantly, I believe that the Nation requires an investigation of 
both illegal and improper, and that is what with the bipartisan 
unanimous vote of the Governmental Affairs Committee was.
  It is to me just the wrong message to send to the country that we are 
not going to let the investigative body look into improper activities, 
particularly involving soft money; independent expenditures which are 
now for the most part legal, not totally because there are some 
questions of illegality. But there are some. Most of the soft money is 
probably legal. Most of the independent expenditures are probably 
legal. But much of it deserves scrutiny and investigation.
  What the Rules Committee has done is to deny--in a unanimous vote by 
the Governmental Affairs Committee--use of these additional funds to 
both look at improper and illegal activity. And I just hope the Senate 
as a whole will not set this precedent.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, with that I await the will of the Senate 
to work on it. But I point out that there is $4.53 million. There is no 
proscription in there. But I would think that however this resolution 
emerges it should be a guidepost for the conduct of the investigation 
of this committee.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to compliment my colleague from 
Virginia, and echo some of the comments that he has made. I happen to 
have the distinction, as a couple of us do, to serve on both 
committees. I serve on the Rules Committee, and I serve on the 
Governmental Affairs Committee. I think the resolution that the Senator 
from Virginia brought to the floor--and I compliment him for it--says 
that we should abide by the jurisdiction of the committees. The Rules 
Committee has jurisdiction over campaign finance reform. It has had 
that jurisdiction for years. One of the reasons I became involved in 
the Rules Committee, one of the reasons I participated in the 
committee, and one of the reasons I requested time for participating, 
was because I am interested in campaign finance reform legislation, not 
just oversight on illegal activities. That is what the Governmental 
Affairs Committee investigates. That committee will be investigating a 
lot of things that have been discussed on the floor today and tomorrow 
and probably will be investigating these matters for some time this 
year, and rightfully so.

  I believe I even heard the President of the United States say that we 
should investigate some of the alleged laundering of foreign money to 
the Democratic National Committee. We should investigate whether 
foreign nationals have tried to influence American elections. I do 
think, however, that the Rules Committee can work on campaign reform 
and simultaneously have hearings on legal activities dealing with soft 
money and with independent expenditures. I do not think that it is 
appropriate that those hearings should be mixed up with the hearings on 
illegal activity.
  Think about it. We are talking about having people testify under oath 
and perhaps, by subpoena. I know from some of the subpoenas submitted 
by the minority that appear to focus on money spent by these groups--
groups such as the Christian Coalition, Right to Life, the Sierra Club, 
the unions, and so on. A lot of organizations raise money and use that 
money to ``educate their voters.'' Maybe they do a lot more. Maybe they 
want to educate every voter in America. Organized labor put in millions 
of dollars in this last election. I am on the Rules Committee and I 
hope that we have hearings. I would say to the chairman of the Rules 
Committee, have hearings on soft money. What influence did it have on 
independent expenditures?
  I think it is perfectly proper for the Rules Committee to investigate 
campaign finance reform. We put in an extra $450,000 in this resolution 
for the Rules Committee to investigate ``legal but improper'' 
activities. If somebody deems a legal act to be improper, well that is 
the eyes of the beholder. But the Rules Committee, the committee of 
jurisdiction, the committee that will be charged with writing campaign 
finance reform, should be the committee that is going to be trying to 
figure out how you handle soft money.
  For those who have not really looked into campaign finance reform 
before, I will tell you: There is not an easy answer on soft money. 
Some people just say ban it. Well, if you just automatically say ban 
it, you probably have not thought about it very much. You probably have 
not thought, ``Wait a minute. Are we going to tell an organization they 
can't communicate their views to members on legislation pending or on a 
Member's vote on whether they are for their side or against this 
side?'' I do not think we want to do that. I think that can become an 
infringement on the people's rights of free speech. I think it may very 
well be declared unconstitutional. I really do not have any interest in 
us passing legislation just to have it to be declared unconstitutional 
by the courts.
  So my point is that issues concerning independent expenditures and 
soft money are not easily dealt with. I will tell my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle that I would be happy to work with others that 
have ideas. I think there is a real imbalance in today's

[[Page S2073]]

electoral system. Under today's laws, individuals are limited donations 
of $1,000. But you have unlimited expenditures on soft money. So an 
individual can only put in $1,000. But you might have a wealthy person 
put in $10 million to try to educate the populace on a particular 
issue. Another example, as the Senator from Virginia found out, you 
might run against a very wealthy candidate that might put in $12 
million or $15 million and just swamp the airwaves. Yet, a Senator or 
another individual, if they don't have a lot of resources, would be 
limited to $1,000 per election, and $2,000 for a primary and general 
election. There are some real imbalances here and I would like to see 
us work to correct those.
  I think that is properly done in the Rules Committee, not the 
Governmental Affairs Committee. The Governmental Affairs Committee is 
not going to be marking up the legislation on this issue. When you are 
dealing with the oversight on independent expenditures, on soft money, 
on legal campaign activity and the investigations, the Rules Committee 
should lead. The investigations under the Governmental Affairs 
Committee is where we have the subpoena power. That is where we are 
talking about trying to uncover what has happened. We have 
constitutional responsibilities within this committee to exercise 
oversight and find out if the laws have been broken. That is one of our 
responsibilities on Government Affairs and we need to do it.

  I don't think it would be fair to be calling on people who have 
allegedly broken the law, having them sworn in, giving depositions 
under oath, making statements before the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, and then the next week be calling in groups under the same 
circumstances that were acting legally under the current system. I 
think they would be unfairly tainted with the same broad brush of 
illegal activity. I do not think that is right. I think it would be a 
mistake.
  So I compliment my colleague from Virginia. I think he has designed a 
good resolution, a resolution that we can pass. It is a resolution that 
protects the jurisdictions of each committee. We actually have three 
committees involved. We have the Governmental Affairs Committee, which 
has very broad jurisdiction.
  My colleague from Michigan asked if they can not investigate 
everything else. The Governmental Affairs Committee basically has the 
authority under its legislative authority to investigate almost 
anything related to Government. And so some people say, why even bother 
trying to delineate what they can investigate? They can investigate 
anything. However, I think what we have come up with a solution to let 
the Governmental Affairs Committee investigate the illegalities of the 
last election, whether it be congressional or presidential. Let the 
Rules Committee conduct hearings on campaign finance reform and soft 
money and include hearings on improper activities, if there truly were 
improper activities. Maybe we can come to a consensus on how to handle 
soft money or independent expenditures. And if we find Members who have 
violated the rules or the laws, have those be referred to the Ethics 
Committee.
  Some people say that the Ethics Committee is a chamber that no one 
hears from. I have been in the Senate now 17 years, and I can think of 
at least 5 Senators who are not here primarily as a result of the 
Ethics Committee. They do made a difference and they changed people's 
careers. They caused people to retire. They caused people not to run 
for reelection or they caused expulsion from the Senate. So the Ethics 
Committee does exercise its responsibility.
  I compliment my colleague from Virginia. I think the delineation and 
protection is important. Frankly, if I was chairman of the Rules 
Committee, I would guarantee you I would be down here fighting for my 
committee's jurisdiction. We do it all the time. The Rules Committee 
does have jurisdiction over campaign finance reform and it should fight 
to protect that. It should have any hearings on independent 
expenditures. And my colleagues, if they want to get into it, I am all 
for it. Have the hearings. But to me it is in the right scenario. It is 
not putting people under oath and subpoenaing documents and making them 
submit to the same procedures as when illegal activities before a 
committee are under consideration.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. NICKLES. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. WARNER. First, I as chairman wish to give assurance of the 
Senator, who is a member of the committee, and other members, it has 
been the intention of the Rules Committee to continue as we did last 
year with extensive hearings--six in total. We will continue this year, 
and we will deal with those issues relating to soft money and 
independent expenditures. Somebody thinks you can take a hand and 
remove soft money but it is just all driven into the independent 
expenditure. And then you come straight to the first amendment and an 
individual's right to speak and to spend, which the Supreme Court of 
the United States has basically equated under their interpretation of 
the Constitution. Am I not right on that?
  Mr. NICKLES. I think the Senator is correct. We may well have the 
debate on this this week, just to answer my colleague. We may well have 
the debate on whether or not we will have a constitutional amendment to 
limit the first amendment as it pertains to speech in campaigns. Some 
people advocate that. I do not happen to be one. But again that is a 
fair debate and one that we will probably have in the Chamber.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could continue with the question, and 
I recognize two other Senators are seeking recognition so I will be 
brief, but several of our colleagues, and I respect their views, have 
come during the course of this very good debate this afternoon on this 
issue and tried to indicate in their judgment that this action by the 
Rules Committee is a deterrent, stalling or in another way impeding the 
progress of the Senate on the generic subject of campaign finance 
reform, which we have been working on now for some 2 years, and I do 
not think this is in any way a deterrent. As a matter of fact, the 
Governmental Affairs committee is to go on until next December.
  It would be my hope and expectation that the distinguished majority 
leader and the Senator from Oklahoma in consultation with the minority 
leader would work on a schedule that is mutually agreeable. And I also 
wish to commend the Senator for taking the leadership in consultation 
with the majority leader to have a specific task force within our group 
that is now assessing what can be done and what will withstand 
constitutional scrutiny of the Federal courts to put a package 
together. It would be wrong to put a package through here if we all 
knew, many of us being lawyers, that it was going to be struck down by 
the Federal courts. But it is an easy thing to go out amidst this 
public concern, rightful concern about campaign finance reform, shovel 
the legislation out knowing that in a year's time it will be struck 
done by the courts. And that is wrong.
  So I wonder if the Senator would just take a minute to describe the 
work of the task force. We have now had three meetings. In my judgment, 
we are making progress and I hope that the Senator shares that 
judgment.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague. Let me just make a couple of 
comments, Mr. President. One, we do have a group that is currently 
working on campaign finance reform. And to those who are saying that 
this effort of having the Rules Committee have jurisdiction over 
campaign reform is a stall--I think it is quite the opposite. I think 
having the Rules Committee retain its historical, legitimate 
jurisdiction over campaign reform is the right thing to do. I also 
think it is the best thing to do if you want to have real campaign 
reform, if you want to get something passed.
  Now, we can work simultaneously. I believe the Governmental Affairs 
Committee is going to be swamped. It has numerous allegations to 
review. Allegations have been made almost on a daily basis for weeks 
and weeks now. The list is very long. If you tack on to that, an 
additional general oversight on campaign reform, I think that bogs down 
the process for, one, getting the original investigation resolved and, 
two, it bogs down campaign reform.
  Now, I think by separating the two oversight responsibilities by 
having

[[Page S2074]]

hearings on campaign reform in the Rules Committee, it will allow the 
Rules Committee to consider those issues and to go ahead and work on 
legislation. We may have to do the legislation in a couple of pieces. 
Some people are very adamant on passing campaign reform legislation 
this year and they think we can only do it in one piece. I would urge 
my colleagues--and I see my friend from Wisconsin here--who are really 
interested in campaign reform to think of possibly what we can do. What 
can we put together now that has bipartisan support that we can pass?
  I can think of several things. Full and immediate disclosure for soft 
money, for independent expenditures and for all hard money. There is a 
lot of money under the table right now. We do not have any idea, for 
example, how much total money that organized labor put into the 
campaigns. We do not have any idea how much different groups have put 
in. We could require immediate disclosure, and I bet we could get an 
overwhelming vote, even a unanimous vote, for immediate disclosure.
  I think we can do some other things. There are a lot of other good 
ideas but I do not know that I should throw all of them out because I 
am starting to negotiate on these with my Democrat colleagues who want 
to make some real reform. Maybe we could come up with a consensus 
package now that includes reform on individual and special interest 
money. Some people advocate confining money to being raised in their 
State or district. I am for looking into that. Let us negotiate and see 
if we cannot put together a package by having oversight in the Rules 
Committee to include issues of independent expenditures and soft money. 
Let us see if we can come up with an agreement on that. Maybe the 
hearings will evolve to where we can come to a consensus on these 
issues. Also, maybe at the conclusion of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, we may find other statutes that need to be changed.
  Most of the things that we are looking at investigating right now 
concern statutes that are fairly clear. In some cases, they have been 
ambiguous. I noticed the statute in section 607, where it says it shall 
be unlawful for any person to solicit in a Government building. And the 
Vice President said he is exempt from the law. I find that to be a 
stretch. I do not see an exemption there for the Vice President. But if 
he is correct, maybe we need to change the law.
  And so maybe these hearings will evolve and we will learn a little 
bit more about what should be included in our laws. I am happy to do 
that. But I do not think the Rules Committee has to wait on the 
Governmental Affairs Committee to act. I am willing to act earlier. I 
am very, very serious about trying to work to see if we cannot come up 
with bipartisan consensus legislation. Once we have passed that, to see 
if we can come up with those elements that we can agree upon such as 
making sure, for example, that all contributions for political 
campaigns are voluntary. To me that is a fundamental right. We should 
have that in a package.
  So let us put together a package, pass it and then if we determine 
because of the Governmental Affairs Committee hearings or the Rules 
Committee hearings that we need to do further work, we can address it 
and pass that possibly later.
  So again, I compliment my friend from Virginia for his resolution. I 
am hopeful that we will be able to pass it soon. I am hopeful--I see my 
colleague from Ohio--that we will be able to work together in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee in a bipartisan fashion to get the facts 
out and to conclude. I will tell my colleague I was one that said let 
us try to wrap this up this year. I do not want this thing going on 
forever. So we will work towards that end. I thank my colleagues, and I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that was a very interesting dissertation 
as part of this debate by the distinguished majority whip.
  I would like to also note that the former chairman of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, the senior Senator from Alaska, 
participated throughout the debate in the Rules Committee on this 
issue. He, as well as anyone, understands that committee, the scope of 
its jurisdiction, the wisdom of preserving the jurisdiction, and he 
voted solidly with us on this matter. So we have three members, the 
distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, the distinguished Senator from 
Alaska, and the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, who spoke today 
in strong support of this resolution.
  So we are particularly fortunate that we have three members of the 
other committee that served on the Rules Committee and who gave their 
unqualified support for this resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I will not make prolonged remarks this 
evening, but I must reply to some of the things that have been said 
here because the implication, at least, has been that somehow 
Governmental Affairs was usurping jurisdiction or something, and that 
Rules are protecting their turf in making sure this jurisdiction was 
not taken over by Governmental Affairs. I think we need to briefly 
review the bidding and how we got where we are.
  When all this matter of campaign finance reform first came up, there 
were a number of committees in the Senate that thought they had a piece 
of this and wanted to have hearings or were quoted in the paper as 
saying they might look into it. We had Commerce, Judiciary, Foreign 
Relations, the Rules Committee, and Governmental Affairs--all were 
involved. What was decided in centering this in Governmental Affairs 
was not a decision made on the Democratic side at all. To concentrate 
this in the Governmental Affairs Committee was a decision of the 
Republican leadership, that they did not want this strung out all over 
the lot. And with Governmental Affairs having the preeminent 
investigative authority in the Senate, they would concentrate 
everything there. The newspaper reports, at least, indicated that the 
leadership got the other committee chairmen to sign off with that 
approach, and it was announced that the Governmental Affairs Committee 
was going to take the lead in this.
  That was not a decision made on the minority side. That was a 
decision made and carried out on the majority side. So there was no 
effort whatsoever by anybody to take some jurisdiction away from 
another committee.
  Now, let us follow this through just very briefly as to what 
happened. When did the Rules Committee finally get interested in this 
and decide it was in their jurisdiction? Only after the funding request 
came from the Governmental Affairs Committee and the members on the 
Rules Committee, who really do not want campaign finance reform, 
blocked the funding, period, not in an official committee meeting, but 
in a meeting just of the Republicans on that committee.
  Why did they object to the funding rules? Because they have an 
objection to campaign finance reform. This got into a real impasse, a 
real impasse with Republican leadership. So, then it became a deal cut 
to say we will water down what Governmental Affairs is going to do and 
we will let the Rules Committee handle this, because we have members 
opposed to campaign finance reform on the Rules Committee.
  It has been pointed out that we have members now on the Rules 
Committee that are also on the Governmental Affairs Committee, three 
crossovers, three people with dual membership on both committees, who 
voted on the Rules Committee to do what this Senate Resolution 39 that 
we are debating is supposed to do. But I would point out, those are the 
same three members who voted unanimously on the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, unanimously on the scope, unanimously on what was to be 
looked into, unanimously there would be no-holds-barred, unanimously we 
would look into soft money, unanimously we would look into legal, 
illegal, improper, whatever--wherever the track led us. That is what 
they voted for on the Governmental Affairs Committee, and that is the 
reason it went to the Rules Committee that way.

  It was only after members of the Rules Committee put this whole thing 
into a quagmire of dissent and were going to block any funding that 
this so-called compromise arrangement--or capitulation, I would term 
it--was

[[Page S2075]]

worked out. And that is just exactly how this thing developed.
  So, all the talk here about how the Rules Committee members voted 
this so it must be right because they are also on Governmental Affairs 
ignores that they are the ones who voted unanimously on Governmental 
Affairs for the scope, for everything we wanted to look into. We hoped 
we could work out a goal. All of these things that were voted out of 
committee only got objections after it got over to the Rules Committee 
where any funding was stopped by the people who basically do not want 
any campaign finance reform.
  I hate to be so blunt, but that is exactly----
  Mr. WARNER. Will my colleague yield for a second?
  Mr. GLENN. I will yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. I think, if you are going to have that rendition of 
facts, you should also include that those same members asked for $11-
plus million and no time limitation, which, if I may with respect, you 
and your colleagues objected to. So that changed the entire formula for 
those three members.
  Mr. GLENN. How did that change the formula, changing the money?
  Mr. WARNER. When you denied them the fact they could go on without a 
time limitation, and the amount of money. My recollection is that you 
were only going to grant $1.8 million.
  Mr. GLENN. No, let me correct that, because what happened on this was 
that was a proposal from the Democratic side. It was voted down on 
Republican side. And the $6.5 million was voted out of committee to the 
Rules Committee and the Democrats, who had thought we could get by with 
a much lower figure because every other committee had, going into this 
investigation with the idea that you always could come back and ask for 
money--which was done in the case of Watergate, with five different 
allocations of money. They voted out of committee $6.5 million. That is 
what went to the Rules Committee. So we had gotten past that hurdle 
there. We were going with $6.5 million over at Rules, and that is when 
Republican members on the Rules Committee objected to going forward. 
That was not the Democratic side. That is how we got to where we are 
right now.
  So I am sure we are going to have more debate on this tomorrow, but I 
just thought I better indicate here, this was not Governmental Affairs 
trying to usurp jurisdiction. That jurisdiction was given to us by the 
Republican leadership in trying to combine all of the different 
committees that wanted this investigation into one investigation, under 
the prime investigative committee in the Senate, which is the 
Governmental Affairs Committee. That was a decision of the Republican 
leadership. We had nothing to do with that on our side of the aisle. It 
only came apart, even after it was voted out of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee unanimously, by all Republican members, and got over 
to the Rules Committee and ran into trouble with some who want no 
campaign finance reform and objected so strenuously that a deal had to 
be cut to let them have some jurisdiction back on the Rules Committee 
in the areas of soft money that they are so afraid will be changed, and 
brought it back over there where they would have more of a chance to 
control it.
  We, then, on the Governmental Affairs Committee, were charged with 
looking into only illegalities. That is a far narrower standard, when 
you get to investigating matters. We had hoped to have, and what the 
Republican members on the Governmental Affairs Committee had all voted 
for, was a broad investigation, no-holds-barred, let's set the basis 
for campaign finance reform for the future. That is basically what is 
being denied now.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I shall yield momentarily to my 
distinguished colleague after just one further fact. The Rules 
Committee--we went back and checked it again--noted that concerning the 
request for funding from the Governmental Affairs Committee, which in 
the tradition of the Senate both the chairman and the ranking would 
sign, the distinguished ranking member of the Governmental Affairs did 
not sign the financial request for $11-plus million that came to our 
committee.
  So I think there are a few other facts that should be brought to bear 
as we look at this situation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it was not too long ago, just last June, 
when I joined the senior Senator from Arizona and the senior Senator 
from Tennessee, as well as the senior Senator from Minnesota and other 
Senators, in offering in this body the first bipartisan campaign 
finance proposal in over a decade. Although the legislation had 
received unprecedented bipartisan support, including the backing of 
President Clinton and Ross Perot and Common Cause, 161 different 
editorial boards nationwide and some 60 congressional Democrats and 
Republicans, we in this body did fail to invoke cloture on that measure 
by 6 votes.
  We have heard some interesting arguments during the past summer about 
this in the public debate, when we did finally debate campaign finance 
reform for just 2 days under a series of rules that would not allow us 
to amend the bill but would only allow us to have a debate for 2 days 
and then vote immediately on cloture.
  That was the deal we had to accept, just to have this issue heard in 
this body and before the American people. But we did so because we 
wanted a chance to be heard.
  We were told on that occasion by our opponents, led by the junior 
Senator from Kentucky, very clearly that he believed there really 
wasn't much of a problem with our current campaign finance system. We 
were told that the explosion in campaign spending that we had seen in 
1992 and, again, in the 1994 elections was not only not a cause for 
alarm; we were told by some, led by the senior Senator from Kentucky, 
that this onslaught of campaign cash was healthy for democracy. That is 
what we were told, and it carried the day, although a majority of this 
body did vote to go forward. The status quo, we were told, was 
democracy at its finest, and more spending, more big spending, would 
only make it better.
  Of course, we heard the other side of this debate from those of us 
who adamantly are opposed to the status quo, and at one point during 
the public debate over this issue, I recall very clearly hearing both 
the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], and the Senator from Tennessee 
[Mr. Thompson], predict that the 1996 elections would produce a large-
scale scandal. They predicted a scandal. I also remember their stern 
warnings that it would be a scandal of grand magnitude that would 
eventually compel the Congress to pass meaningful campaign finance 
reform.
  Mr. President, based on what has happened in the months that followed 
that debate, what was right? Who was right? Those who were proclaiming 
that money in politics was a match made in Heaven, or those who 
suggested that money in politics was closer to gasoline and matches?
  I believe the debate we are having today, and the endless headlines 
and media reports of abuses by both sides of the aisle in the last 
election, provide a clear answer to that question. In fact, the Senator 
from Kentucky and others who opposed our effort last June on the 
grounds that we needed more campaign spending, not less, got exactly 
what they wanted in the last election. They got more spending all 
right.
  The 1996 elections set an all-time record for campaign spending at 
$2.7 billion--$2.7 billion, Mr. President. Now, was democracy 
strengthened, as the Senator from Kentucky suggested it would be? I 
don't think so. Considering that the fewest percentage of Americans 
went to the ballot in 72 years in that election, I would say that we 
can lay to rest the theory that more campaign spending increases 
participation in our political system and is somehow good for 
democracy.
  The resolution before us today provides about $4.3 million for the 
Governmental Affairs Committee to conduct an investigation into 
reported illegalities stemming from just the 1996 elections. This 
includes abuses both in the Presidential and congressional elections. 
The investigation, as we have laid out here today, must conclude by

[[Page S2076]]

December 31, and a report must be issued by the committee within 1 
month after that date.
  Ultimately, I certainly will support this resolution, because I 
strongly believe these activities must be investigated on a bipartisan 
basis. That is why I have also supported an appointment of an 
independent counsel to investigate both Republican and Democratic 
abuses in the 1996 elections. I am aware that several of my colleagues 
originally held to the position, as the senior Senator from Ohio is 
pointing out, that the committee should only examine abuses in the 
Presidential election, but in light of the recent revelations about 
potential congressional campaign finance abuses in the last election, I 
commend the authors of this resolution for their willingness to 
investigate wrongdoing at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
  I am concerned, however, that this resolution is confined to the 1996 
elections. Just in the past few days, allegations have come to light 
about the 1992 elections and potential wrongdoing by the current 
Speaker of the other body, as well as a former Vice President of the 
United States. These 1992 allegations are as serious, in my mind, as 
the 1996 allegations, and they warrant a full investigation by the 
oversight committees. The use of the White House and the office of the 
Vice President for activities related to fundraising I don't think was 
invented in 1996. That is just my guess, but I am pretty sure it was 
not invented in 1996.
  Although it is imperfect, I will ultimately support the underlying 
resolution to allow this investigation to go forward and hope that the 
committee, under the strong leadership of the Senators from Tennessee 
and Ohio, will conduct a balanced and bipartisan investigation process.
  But we have to recognize that these investigations are only one small 
step forward. We have to understand that these abuses, on both sides of 
the aisle, were an almost inevitable byproduct of a campaign finance 
system that has virtually no restraints on candidate or party spending 
and no restraints whatsoever on the so-called soft money contributions 
that seem to be at the focal point of so many of these abuses.
  These abuses, as the Senators from Arizona and Tennessee predicted 
last June, were simply inevitable. Yes, it is illegal to raise campaign 
funds from the White House or from a Senate office. Yes, it is illegal 
to accept campaign contributions from nonresident foreign nationals. 
Now, that is clear. But let us talk about fundraising practices where 
the lines between what is legal and illegal and what is ethical and 
unethical become far more blurred. This is very, very difficult to 
determine whether something is simply illegal or legal.

  For example, under current law, it is viewed as legal for a 
corporation, a labor union or a wealthy individual to hand the 
President of the United States or a U.S. Senator acting on behalf of 
their political parties a check for $400,000. As long as the check is 
made out to the party and not the person accepting or even soliciting 
the check, it is widely viewed as legal. It is called soft money, which 
is unlimited campaign contributions from sources which are normally 
restricted in their contributing, based on the reforms that were 
enacted some 20 years ago.
  For example, corporations and labor unions, which are strictly 
forbidden from contributing directly to Federal candidates, can 
contribute unlimited sums of money to the national parties, which then 
funnel these funds into various House and Senate races. Mr. President, 
I don't think anyone in this body is going to be able to fool the 
American people on this. What this system is is a giant money 
laundering operation, and it is done openly. That is what it is. It is 
a giant money laundering operation, known as soft money.
  It is also considered legal, apparently, for elected officials to 
trade access for huge campaign contributions. That is probably on the 
legal side of the ledger. Let me give you a couple of examples.
  In 1995, the Republican National Committee promised $15,000 donors 
four meetings a year with House and Senate Republican leaders, as well 
as participation in international trade missions. That same year, the 
Democratic National Committee offered $10,000 donors the opportunity to 
participate in trade missions to Budapest, Vienna, and Paris.
  This system of exchanging access to elected officials for large 
campaign contributions was recently referred to by a Member of this 
body as ``the American way,'' that it is simply the American way to do 
things this way. Mr. President, if that is true, it is an awfully sad 
day for America.
  The abuses that have been uncovered in recent elections are the 
symptoms, not the disease. The disease is our failed campaign finance 
system. Nowhere is this more visible than with the virtual explosion of 
so-called soft money. In the 1992 elections, about $86 million was 
raised by the two national parties in these so-called soft money 
contributions. In 1994, that figure jumped to over $100 million. And 
then in the 1996 elections, soft money exploded, and the two parties 
accumulated over $263 million in soft money contributions. That, Mr. 
President, is more than a 150 percent increase in just 2 years.

  When is this body going to stand up and say that it should be 
illegal, clearly illegal, for anyone, whether you are from Jakarta or 
Janesville, WI, to make a $400,000 contribution?
  When is this body going to stand up and say that we should reform a 
system that reelects incumbents well over 90 percent of the time?
  When is this body going to stand up and say there is simply too much 
money flowing through our campaign system? And, yes, we do need--soon--
comprehensive bipartisan reform.
  I just got here a little while ago, got to the floor, and heard the 
arguments of, yes, we are going to have the investigation and, yes, we 
are going to have a vote on the constitutional amendment on campaign 
finance reform. I am hopeful no one will be fooled. That combination of 
limited hearings that have to do with only illegal conduct and a vote 
on a constitutional amendment that will lose is simply a way to sweep 
this issue under the rug. That is all it is. That is a deadly 
combination. That would be the death of campaign finance reform, to 
simply pretend that a vote on a constitutional amendment, with the 
barriers that are involved there in a limited hearing, will somehow 
take care of this problem.
  Many of the people who are saying that they are concerned and want to 
work on this issue are the very ones that voted last year to not even 
put campaign finance reform on the agenda of the 104th Congress. So we 
ought to very carefully examine their claims that the combination of a 
couple days of debate on a constitutional amendment and limited 
hearings will do the job. If it can be accomplished, it will be a very 
neat trick. And it worked in the 104th Congress, but it will not work 
in the 105th Congress.
  Mr. President, it will not be possible to contain this issue. It will 
not be possible to just sweep it under the rug.
  Mr. President, make no mistake, the investigations and the issue of 
legislating campaign finance reform are automatically and inextricably 
linked to each other. Let me say, if these investigations are done 
right, it can help.
  An investigation that shines a spotlight on the darkest corners of 
our campaign finance system can be a useful endeavor so long as those 
who benefit the most from our current campaign finance rules are 
willing to turn the spotlight on themselves.
  Passage of this resolution, if done right, is a first step. But I do 
not believe its passage will change one bit the public's perception 
that their Government and the elected leaders are for sale.
  The only way we can truly begin the process of restoring the trust 
and faith of the American people in their elected officials is to pass 
meaningful, bipartisan campaign finance reform. It is my sincere hope 
that opportunity presents itself in the coming months. And I look 
forward to a thoughtful debate on the issue as well as negotiations 
with regard to the specifics.
  So although I will support this resolution, I will also support 
efforts to strengthen it by explicitly broadening its scope to include 
both legal and illegal fundraising activities as well as including the 
elections prior to 1996 where the seeds of much of this abuse were 
planted.
  Mr. President, what I just described was the original scope of the 
hearings approved by the Governmental Affairs

[[Page S2077]]

Committee on a bipartisan, unanimous vote of 16 to 0. And those who 
supported the narrowing of this scope owe the American people an 
explanation of why we are only going to examine some of the abuses but 
not all of the abuses.
  In my view, many of the issues can be investigated even under the 
wording of the resolution before us. In other words, I think it is 
going to be very difficult to simply make a legal ruling that something 
was legal or illegal without looking at the facts. And I do think, 
however, though it would be preferable to restore the specific language 
regarding the detailed scope that was originally outlined by the 
Governmental Affairs Committee. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the 
floor.

  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I would like to ask my distinguished colleague from 
Wisconsin a question.
  We reviewed your bill with great care in the Rules Committee. You 
will recall that. I think you appeared before the committee, am I not 
correct in that?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I do recall that.
  Mr. WARNER. Essential to this whole debate is the question of unions. 
Yet my colleague from Wisconsin excluded that from consideration in his 
bill.
  What do you say as to why you purposefully left an important part of 
reform out of your proposed legislation?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the answer to the question is, the 
distinguished Senator from Virginia must be talking about a different 
bill. This bill bans soft money. The labor unions in this country, I 
believe, spent $7 million this year on soft money. That is wiped out by 
the McCain-Feingold bill.
  Second, this bill added last year, and it has in this year's version, 
significant limitations on political action committees. I believe the 
unions in this country spent about $14 million on political action 
committees.
  Our bill says, if you want the benefit of the voluntary limits within 
the bill, you have to limit how much you get from political action 
committees to total to less than 20 percent of your total campaign 
contributions.
  It also takes down the amount that a political action committee can 
give from $5,000 to $1,000 to the individual limit.
  These are severe and real restrictions which I can assure you that 
the labor unions do not like. In fact, last year there was a meeting of 
various labor unions and business groups and women's groups and others 
saying they were very unhappy.
  Finally, Mr. President, let me say, in answer to the question, the 
Senator from Arizona and I have said in the past we are willing to look 
at other provisions relating to this broader issue as long as it is 
fair from the point of view of looking at issues of corporate giving, 
of share-holding money and the giving activities of other organizations 
that use their members' dues. That is possible.
  So we have two major limitations on unions in the bill now. And we 
are willing to discuss an evenhanded provision that relates to other 
issues. It is simply not the case----
  Mr. WARNER. If I----
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me finish. It is simply not the case, Mr. 
President, that anyone has barred limitations that affect unions in our 
bill.
  Mr. WARNER. Do I understand that on the question of dues, these are 
in many instances deducted from the paycheck. Am I not correct in that?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, that is one of a variety of issues that 
has to do with how unions operate. There are issues of how corporations 
take money from shareholders, profits to use on campaigns. There are 
issues about how the National Rifle Association, for example, takes its 
members' dues and uses that for their activities. These are issues that 
can be considered.
  Now, I will agree with the Senator, we have not put a provision 
relating to all of this in our bill at this point because I think it is 
possible that if we try to take all of that on, it could kill campaign 
finance reform. It could make it very difficult for us to ban soft 
money and to put a voluntary limitation system on Members of Congress 
with incentives.
  But the Senator from Arizona and I have been very careful in saying 
everything is potentially on the table, and we want to negotiate. 
Nothing has been stopped from being considered as this bill comes 
forward.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I just conclude by saying that over $35 
million was spent by the unions in the last election, to the best of my 
knowledge.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. A brief rejoinder on that.
  The Senator mentioned $35 million spent by the unions in the last 
election. As I illustrated in my remarks, our bill certainly affects at 
least $20 million worth of spending that unions did with regard to soft 
money and political action committees. And may I just point out that 
the amount of money spent by corporations and other interests in this 
country, I think, would simply dwarf the figures that are being thrown 
out around here. That has to be addressed as well.
  I thank the chair.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, before I introduce my amendment, I would 
like to correct the statement I made in the earlier debate.
  The Democrats voted against the $6.5 million recommendation that came 
out of the committee, but we were outvoted on that at the end. We had 
favored the smaller amount and letting the committee back for 
additional allocations of money as were required later on if paydirt 
was being hit, if the hearings were being fruitful.
  So, the original resolution to rules went with a partisan vote on the 
money, but not on the scope because there was unanimous agreement on 
the scope. And that is what now is largely at issue here. So I just 
wanted to correct that so there would be no misunderstanding on it.


                            Amendment No. 21

  (Purpose: To clarify the scope of the investigation, and for other 
                               purposes)

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 21.

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 10, strike lines 17 through 20 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(b) Purpose of Additional Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--The additional funds authorized by this 
     section are for the sole purpose of conducting an 
     investigation into illegal or improper fundraising and 
     spending practices in the 1996 Federal election campaigns, 
     including the following:
       ``(A) Foreign contributions and the effect of those 
     contributions on the United States political system.
       ``(B) Conflicts of interest involving Federal office 
     holders and employees, and the misuse of Government offices.
       ``(C) Failure by Federal employees to maintain and observe 
     legal limitations relating to fundraising and official 
     business.
       ``(D) The independence of the Presidential campaigns from 
     the political activities pursued for their benefit by outside 
     individuals or groups.
       ``(E) The misuse of charitable and tax exempt organizations 
     in connection with political or fundraising activities.
       ``(F) Amounts given to or spent by a political party for 
     the purpose of influencing Federal elections generally that 
     are not subject to the limitations or reporting requirements 
     of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et 
     seq.) (commonly referred to as `soft money') and the effect 
     of soft money on the United States political system.
       ``(G) Promises or grants of special access in return for 
     political contributions or favors.
       ``(H) The effect of independent expenditures (whether by 
     corporations, labor unions, or otherwise) upon the current 
     Federal campaign finance system, and the question as to 
     whether such expenditures are truly independent.
       ``(I) Contributions to and expenditures by entities for the 
     benefit or in the interest of Federal officers.
       ``(J) Practices described in subparagraphs (A) through (I) 
     that occurred in previous Federal election campaigns to the 
     extent that those practices are similar or analogous.
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to limit the

[[Page S2078]]

     authority of the Committee on Governmental Affairs under the 
     Senate Rules or section 13(d) of this resolution.

                          ____________________