[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 30 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2096-S2108]
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 clerk will 
report the resolution.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  The Senate resumed consideration of the resolution.
       Pending:
       Glenn amendment No. 21, to clarify the scope of the 
     investigation.


                  Amendment No. 22 to Amendment No. 21

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk to the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], for himself and 
     Mr. Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 22 to amendment 
     No. 21.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In the pending amendment, strike all after ``(b)'' and 
     insert the following:
       ``(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 Committee on Rules and Administration.--
     Because the Committee on Rules and Administration, not the 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs, has jurisdiction rule 25 
     over all proposed legislation and other matters relating to--
       ``(1) Federal elections generally, including the election 
     of the President, the Vice President, and Members of the 
     Congress, and
       ``(2) corrupt practices,

     the Committee on Governmental Affairs shall refer to the 
     Committee on Rules and Administration any evidence of 
     activities in connection with 1996 Federal election campaigns 
     which activities are not illegal but which may require 
     investigation by a committee of the Senate revealed pursuant 
     to the investigation authorized by subsection (b).''

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we will be working with the Democratic 
leadership to get a time agreement on the vote that will occur at 2:15, 
I presume, on this amendment. But we want to work through that and make 
sure we understand exactly what the voting sequence will be.
  The purpose of this amendment is to reconfirm and beef up our 
commitment to the public and to our colleagues here in the Senate to 
insure that funds are authorized by this section for the sole purpose 
of conducting an investigation of illegal activities in connection with 
the 1996 Federal election campaigns. It is also to make sure that the 
Rules Committee has the full authority, with the support of the Senate, 
to get into matters relating to Federal elections generally, including 
the President, the Vice President and Members of Congress, and corrupt 
practices.
  The Governmental Affairs Committee, under this amendment, shall refer 
to the Committee on Rules and Administration any evidence of activities 
in connection with the 1996 Federal election campaigns which activities 
are not illegal but which require investigation of a committee of the 
Senate revealed pursuant to the investigation authorized under 
subsection (b).
  The Rules Committee is going to be an active committee. The Rules 
Committee will look into any allegations of problems with existing 
campaign laws or campaign finance laws. They will have hearings, and 
they have the jurisdiction and the authority to move legislatively.
  The Governmental Affairs Committee has a budget of $4.53 million for 
its investigation, and it has very broad authority to conduct hearings 
on the 1996 Federal election campaigns. But it is the Rules Committee 
that has the jurisdiction to act legislatively on campaign reform.
  So I emphasize, again, as I did earlier, it is our intent for the 
Rules Committee to act in this area. We have provided additional 
funding and, once again, rather than getting into a great big argument 
about scope, it is clear what should happen here.
  First of all, there are lots of allegations of illegal activities, 
foreign contributions that may have come into campaigns--Presidential 
or congressional--the indications that maybe even a foreign government 
may have had an organized plan to be involved in campaigns. We know if 
these activities occurred, they would be illegal, but we don't know 
what happened. We need a process to look into these things. We need a 
focused investigation into these allegations.
  Yet, there are those who say we need to broaden the scope widely, 
narrow the money, and limit the time. It is a prescription for not 
getting the job done. This investigation, with the additional authority 
that is being provided of $4.53 million, is for illegal activities, and 
they are rampant in this city. As I said earlier, the city seems to be 
burning while we are fiddling around with the process.
  The Rules Committee has jurisdiction that it will take advantage of. 
The Governmental Affairs Committee is getting additional authority to 
look into illegal activities. Ethics has its responsibilities. There is 
attempt to cover up or avoid our responsibilities. We are going to do 
that.
  I think this amendment that we have offered here further clarifies 
our intent to look into illegal activities by the special committee 
investigation and then to have the Rules Committee look

[[Page S2097]]

into corrupt practices that may be involved that may not be necessarily 
illegal but may need to be looked at for the possibility of changing 
the current practices.


                     Amendment No. 22, As Modified

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, with that, I send a modification to the 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 22), as modified, is as follows:

       In the pending amendment, strike all after ``(b)'' and 
     insert the following:
       ``(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 Committee on Rules and Administration.--
     Because the Committee on Rules and Administration, not the 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs, has jurisdiction under 
     rule 25 over all proposed legislation and other matters 
     relating to--
       ``(1) Federal elections generally, including the election 
     of the President, the Vice President, and Members of 
     Congress, and
       ``(2) corrupt practices,

     the Committee on Governmental Affairs shall refer to the 
     Committee on Rules and Administration any evidence of 
     activities in connection with 1996 Federal election campaigns 
     which activities are not illegal but which may require 
     investigation by a Committee of the Senate revealed pursuant 
     to the investigation authorized by subsection (b).''

  Mr. LOTT. We added only one word, I say to the distinguished ranking 
member. In section C ``Referral to Committee on Rules and 
Administration,'' we add the word ``under rule 25.'' We only added one 
word to make it grammatically correct--``under rule 25.''
  Mr. President, I yield the floor at this time.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I think it is good to review how we got to 
the current situation we are in, because this was not our doing on 
Governmental Affairs. It was not our suggestion that we be given the 
duty of investigating campaign finance reform. It was not our 
suggestion that the jurisdictions of other committees that might have 
an interest in this be given to us.
  What happened--and I am recounting this mainly from press reports of 
what happened, and I presume they are accurate--was that there were 
several committees who saw themselves as wanting part of this 
investigation into campaign finance reform.
  You had the Commerce Committee because there were trade matters 
involved that there had been some allegations about. Senator McCain, 
who has a big interest in campaign finance reform, chairs that 
committee and could take an active role in what might happen with 
campaign finance reform.
  The Judiciary Committee was concerned about some of the legal matters 
regarding elections, and they had some things they were going to look 
into.
  The Foreign Relations Committee certainly had an interest in this 
because foreign money supposedly came back in to our election campaigns 
here. So they wanted to find out what happened to foreign relations and 
foreign policy and were any of those things altered as a result of 
money coming back in.
  The Rules Committee, which has a jurisdiction over election law, 
certainly had an interest in this particular area.
  The Governmental Affairs Committee, of which I am the ranking member, 
also had their own interest in this in that we are basically the 
investigative committee of the Senate. We have investigated such things 
as drugs and drugs coming into the country and organized crime and 
fraudulent health programs and nonproliferation around the world of 
nuclear weapons and terrorism and a whole host of things that we have a 
broad experience investigating. Our mandate to do investigations is the 
broadest on Capitol Hill. We have been accustomed to doing this through 
many, many decades.
  The suggestion was not made from the Democratic side that all these 
conflicting jurisdictions be combined into the Governmental Affairs 
Committee. This was a suggestion that was made by the Republican 
leadership. In fact, it was not only a suggestion, it was decided by 
the Republican leadership on their side of the aisle that these other 
jurisdictions would not be exercised and that this investigation would 
be focused in the Governmental Affairs Committee.
  This was not a suggestion made from the Democratic side. It was 
Republican leadership that decided this. And so to act now as though we 
were somehow usurping authority of another committee by proposing a 
broad investigation on the Governmental Affairs Committee just is not 
the case. That is just not the way it happened.
  I can tell you exactly what happened. And once again, this has all 
been out in public print. This is not something I know from being in 
meetings because I have not been in meetings that were involved with 
any of these decisions to assign it to the Governmental Affairs 
Committee.
  But what happened, when it got to the Governmental Affairs Committee, 
was this: Senator Thompson had an interest in a broad investigation. I 
had an interest in a broad investigation. We had some ideas on scope. 
We sat down in a couple of meetings, and we worked out an agreement 
that was broad in scope, as it should be, because this whole 
investigation into campaign finance reform does not involve only 
illegalities, those things that are against the law. It involves much 
more than that.
  Any fair observer of the campaign finance system agrees that in 
addition to illegalities, there are many, many things out there that 
are legal but probably should not be. All the abuses of soft money, as 
it is called, that came up in this last election, all those abuses were 
so onerous to most people across this country that they just want us to 
get into campaign finance reform.
  Every single poll that has been done across this country shows that 
people want campaign finance reform. They also see that polling has 
been interesting in that it has indicated that they think both parties, 
both campaigns this last election cycle--the fault that can be pointed 
at one direction or another is not all one direction, it is bipartisan. 
We have a bipartisan problem here, and we need a bipartisan solution.
  Part of it is looking into illegalities where the existing law was 
violated. There is no doubt that that has to be done. The other part of 
this problem is looking into the soft money in particular and 
independent expenditures that were so vile, so onerous in this last 
election.

  So when Republican leadership assigned this overall investigation of 
campaign finance to the Governmental Affairs Committee, it was not at 
our request, but at his suggestion, at his direction, so that the 
responsibilities would not be in quite a number of different committees 
but would be centered in the basic investigative committee of the U.S. 
Senate.
  Now what happened?
  Senator Thompson and I, in the two meetings I mentioned, sat down and 
we drew out a broad scope in which we planned to look into not only 
illegalities but also into the equally disturbing areas of where 
campaign finance reform is needed that involve soft money and 
independent expenditures.
  In this last election I remember reading a newspaper account of a 
Congressman who, after the election, said he wound up feeling like a 
ping pong ball in the middle of this and he had no control over it 
because there were so many outside influences coming in and putting ads 
on that he did not even know anything about that he felt like a ping 
pong ball in his own election and completely out of control of the 
situation.
  Now, if we are going to take any fair look at campaign finance 
reform, it is going to have to involve illegalities, of course. We plan 
to look into those. But we got to have soft money. Our scope, as we had 
outlined it on that committee, was put out. It disturbed some people.
  Let me say, when Senator Thompson and I agreed to the scope, it was 
then taken to the committee. The committee has three members on the 
Governmental Affairs Committee that are also members of the Rules 
Committee. When this was brought before them, after considerable 
debate, the committee agreed upon the scope of our investigation. They 
voted on that and approved it. It was agreed upon.
  What happened when that got to the Rules Committee? The fact is that 
on

[[Page S2098]]

the Rules Committee some of the people that are the most adamant 
against any campaign reform consideration at all disagreed strongly 
with what was being done and that any look be taken into the soft money 
area. When it got to the Rules Committee with the request for the 
additional funding of the $6.5 million that had gone over, that 
disturbed them very much.
  So what happened? They delayed funding in the Rules Committee because 
of their objection to us looking into soft money and some of the things 
that are legal but probably should not be what we were going to look 
into. They wanted to protect their ability to raise soft money because 
they outdo the Democrats about two to one in soft money raising.
  Obviously, it is a factor in not only having gained control of the 
Senate but in maintaining control of the Senate. They objected over on 
the Rules Committee to the funding that had to be approved by the Rules 
Committee for additional funding for investigations.
  Now, at that point things were stymied. They dug in their heels over 
there and were not going to approve any money, as I understand it, for 
investigation unless our jurisdiction on the Governmental Affairs 
Committee was reduced and those jurisdictions involving things we were 
going to look into with regard to soft money were brought over to the 
Rules Committee where they obviously would have much more say in what 
happened to that than they would if the jurisdiction stayed with the 
Governmental Affairs Committee.
  That is how we got to where we are. So a reduced amount was agreed 
upon over in the Rules Committee but with the proviso that the 
Governmental Affairs Committee could investigate only illegal 
activities. Only illegal. That took out any investigation, any 
investigation whatever of soft money, unless it proved to be illegal, 
only illegal. But most of the soft money problem is legal. I do not 
think it should be. Our investigations in that area were going to, I 
think, lay out a good case of why we need campaign finance reform 
changes.
  That is how we got to where we are. It was at least implied here on 
the floor yesterday and even this morning I think it could be implied 
that we somehow had overextended our jurisdiction on the Governmental 
Affairs Committee. It was leadership on the Republican side that 
combined all these other committees' interest and assigned to the 
Governmental Affairs Committee the task of looking into all of this 
whole campaign finance reform area.
  Now, what about the substitute amendment that is before the Senate 
now, the substitute to my amendment? What it does, as I see it, and I 
just got it a few minutes ago so I have not had a chance to look into 
it in that much detail, but what it does basically is say that we are 
taking back the authority of the Governmental Affairs Committee that we 
were asked to do. We did not ask to do it, we were assigned that task. 
They are now taking back our authority to look into any of these 
matters, any of the matters relating to Federal elections generally, 
including the election of the President, the Vice President, Members of 
the Congress, and corrupt practices, as I understand it.
  Let me read this through. It is a short amendment.

       Strike all after ``(b)'' and insert the following:
       ``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.''

  Now, my amendment would change that and change the scope back to what 
it was originally in the Governmental Affairs Committee. So that refers 
back to what we were assigned to do.
  It goes on with subsection (c):

       Referral to Committee on Rules and Administration.--Because 
     the Committee on Rules and Administration, not the Committee 
     on Governmental Affairs, has jurisdiction under rule 25 over 
     all proposed legislation and other matters relating to--
       (1) Federal elections generally, including the election of 
     the President, the Vice President, and Members of the 
     Congress, and
       (2) corrupt practices,

     the Committee on Governmental Affairs shall refer to the 
     Committee on Rules and Administration any evidence of 
     activities in connection with the 1996 Federal election 
     campaigns which activities are not illegal but which may 
     require investigation by a Committee of the Senate revealed 
     pursuant to the investigation authorized by subsection (b).

  What we are being told then is we have to refer back, because the 
Committee on Rules and Administration has jurisdiction in these 
matters, which we never quarreled with. That was there going in. It was 
Republican leadership that wanted us to take the jurisdiction and run 
with it on campaign finance reform.
  Now, because it has become objectionable to some Members on their 
side and they see we are going to get into soft money, what happens? 
They are proposing to take that authority back from us. It was at least 
implied yesterday afternoon on the floor and again this morning that we 
somehow were in error, I guess, in what we were doing, even though we 
had been asked to do it by leadership. I do not quarrel with the fact 
that Federal elections generally are looked at by the Rules Committee. 
That is in their jurisdiction. I do not disagree that they can look 
into corrupt practices. I think maybe this could be interpreted to say 
that the Governmental Affairs Committee is not permitted to look into 
corrupt practices, whatever the definition of that is. We will have to 
discuss that a little, I guess.

  In any event, here we are with the situation where on our side of the 
aisle we have been pushing for campaign finance reform this whole year. 
It has been brought up time and time and time again. We wanted to bring 
up the McCain-Feingold bill and get it voted on. There has been very 
little support for that on the other side of the aisle. In fact, none, 
practically. Senator McCain and Senator Thompson probably are the only 
sponsors of that bill on the Republican side.
  So the intent here is obvious. The intent is to squelch the broad-
based investigation that we were going to have on the Governmental 
Affairs Committee and put it back in the Rules Committee where some of 
the Members that are most adamantly opposed to campaign finance reform 
are members.
  So it is not a very pretty picture this morning. I was going to have 
a speech on the scope of my amendment this morning, and it might be 
good, still, to run through some of that. I hope people would see 
through what a subterfuge this is in trying to change the amendment 
that I had before us. I had not been given the opportunity yet this 
morning to make some comments on my amendment, the underlying amendment 
to this second degree. I believe I will make those comments now and 
then see what discussion we want to have beyond that.
  The amendment I offered last evening, or laid down last evening, 
corrected what I saw as the legislation in Senate Resolution 39 where 
it is most deficient, and that is in the scope of our investigation. 
Let me first address Senate Resolution 39 as approved by the Rules 
Committee and is on the floor now as the underlying resolution to be 
considered.
  Where campaign finance reform is concerned, the proposed legislation, 
as far as I am concerned, could be called coverup for Congress, coverup 
for Congress' legislation. I think that is what it is. It does not do 
this incidentally or accidentally. It is not a coverup that is 
incidental or accidental. It is deliberate, intentional, and I think 
cynical. It is specifically defined and worded to thwart and curtail 
much of the campaign finance investigation that was planned by the 
Governmental Affairs Committee this year. After much discussion with 
the belief that the proposed investigation and hearings could set the 
informational basis for much needed campaign finance reform, Chairman 
Thompson and I had agreed upon the scope of the investigation, all 
fully within Governmental Affairs Committee jurisdiction, I might add. 
We were given additional guidelines by the majority leader and on his 
part they would see that other committees were not delving into their 
individual interest areas. That scope was to include investigating 
allegations wherever they might lead and with nothing off limits with 
regard to Federal elections.
  I want to point out that the agreement was approved unanimously by 
the Governmental Affairs Committee,

[[Page S2099]]

three members of which are also on the Rules Committee.
  That greatly disturbed some Members of the Senate who do not favor us 
looking at campaign finance practices on Capitol Hill and, more 
specifically, in the Senate. They had to find a way to control the 
process. Why? Why would anyone want to interfere with investigating 
every facet of campaign finance? So we can correct the abuses that have 
plagued recent elections and nearly made a mockery out of election 
1996, and will be even worse next time around, unless we act to correct 
some of these practices.
  The resolution stands good Government on its head. The amendment I 
proposed would change that. Let me stress that this is the very first 
time in my 22 years in the Senate, and on the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, that I have ever seen any committee approve and bring to the 
floor a resolution prohibiting another committee from investigating 
improper, unethical, or wrongful behavior in any area, whether it was 
special investigative funding or not. That is what is involved here. 
They keep pointing out that this is only the additional money. We still 
could use basic funds out of our committee's normal yearly basic funds 
to do this kind of investigating. But that would mean we would have to 
lay down all the other jurisdictional oversight matters that normally 
come before that committee. So it is deadly serious for those of us who 
are interested in fairness in elections and stamping out the growing 
abuses that have grown apace around the body politic.
  What I am saying the resolution would do is prohibit another 
committee from investigating improper, unethical, or wrongful behavior 
in any area, where it was special investigative funding. Granted, that 
was going to be the source of how we were going to do this 
investigation.
  The proposed resolution says that with the money provided for the 
Governmental Affairs Committee investigation, it may look at illegal 
actions and illegal actions only. Now, that is a far tougher test of 
what we can put on the table to be looked at. Some of those campaign 
activities involving both parties in Federal campaigns has smelled to 
high heaven, in the eyes of most citizens, and they cry out for 
correction, but are legal under current law. It may be legal now, but 
should not be if we are going to clean out the political stables.
  One example of such a subject, as I mentioned, is soft money--money 
which, due to loopholes in the law, can be given in unlimited amounts 
by wealthy individuals, corporations, and unions. That is legal. Soft 
money was obtained and used in the 1996 Federal election in ways that 
turned fairness upside down and corrupted our whole political system. 
Few political scientists would disagree that, if left unchecked to grow 
in the future at the same rate as it has in the past, soft money can 
become an even more destructive and virulent cancer in the body 
politic.
  I was reading a booklet yesterday entitled ``A Bag of Tricks; 
Loopholes in the Campaign Finance System.'' The first sentence of 
chapter one reads:

       The biggest loophole by far in our campaign finance laws is 
     soft money.

  They are right--but it's legal. And now, by S. 39, we are to be 
prohibited from investigating soft money abuses, unless we come across 
some that are definitely illegal. We could look at them. But if an area 
is improper, if it is unethical or just flat common sense that it is 
wrong, we cannot look at it, even though it may be crucial to real 
campaign finance reform, and even though the Governmental Affairs 
Committee has the jurisdiction and experience to investigate.
  Why, then, are we being cut back in scope to the point where only 
illegalities will be on the Governmental Affairs table? Why is our 
investigation being limited to 1996 only? Why cause such a drastic 
change in addressing what is properly viewed as an expanding national 
scandal? The basic question, I guess, is: Who is afraid of what?
  The answer is not very pleasant, but it is obvious. Why the change? 
Because bad as the money chase may be, correcting it would upset the 
apple cart for those in the Senate who have learned how to work the 
system for their own personal or party political benefit.
  Under present law, does one party have an advantage over the other in 
fundraising, in particular, with regard to soft money? Yes. There is a 
substantial difference in the usual supporting donor bases. Both 
Democrats and Republicans have some wealthy individual donors. But the 
preponderance in that area is tilted heavily in favor of wealthy 
Republicans. Both parties have some support from corporations and 
labor. Again, the tilt from labor is on the Democratic side. But, 
again, balancing the Democratic labor support against the Republican 
corporate or wealthy individual support comes out heavily in favor of 
the Republicans.
  Let me read a few figures reported by the Federal Election Commission 
regarding the 1996 elections. Of the total spent on the elections--
everything, not just the Senate, but across the board in the last 
election--the Democrats are estimated to have spent $332 million. 
Republicans spent $548 million. Just in the Senate campaign committees, 
let's look at that. In hard dollars, Democrats raised $30 million; 
Republicans raised $62 million. In soft money, Democrats raised $14 
million; Republicans raised $27 million. That comes down just with 
regard to the Senate as over a 2-to-1 advantage, with Democrats having 
been able to raise $44 million and Republicans $89 million. So, in 
summary, under current law, Republicans are able to raise at least 
double what Democrats raised to help fund Senate races.

  Now, we all know that money is certainly ahead of whatever is in 
second place with regard to winning an election these days. Two-thirds 
of the money goes to TV and other things, and so on. But with money 
being the biggest single factor in political control, it is no wonder 
Republicans in the Senate do not want to change the system. It is the 
``goose laying golden eggs'' that was crucial to gaining, and now to 
retaining, their majority control in the Senate.
  So we need to change S. 39. That is what my amendment would have 
done. In deciding whether to change it, the choice is plain and simple: 
Party and personal interests of the moment versus cleaning up the 
system, making it proper and fair for all Americans, not just a special 
few, for the long-term future.
  Initially, those who were adamantly opposed to campaign finance 
reform on the Republican side--on the Republican side of the Rules 
Committee, which must approve Governmental Affairs Committee 
investigative funding above the normal committee budget--were able to 
prevent funding to the Governmental Affairs Committee for the 
investigations. Had that position prevailed, it would have entirely 
scheduled the hearings, and because the tarnished Republican public 
image which that would evoke was unacceptable to Republican leadership, 
the proposed resolution--S. 39--deal was cut, whereby the Governmental 
Affairs Committee was stripped of its authority to use money provided 
directly for the investigation to look into improper, unethical, or 
wrongful matters, unless they met the far more difficult standard of 
being illegal. And those jurisdictions were specifically given to the 
Rules Committee.
  Now, I have the utmost confidence in Senator Warner, chairman of the 
Rules Committee. I think he will do his best to fulfill the 
responsibilities given to his committee with this resolution. But 
therein lies a problem. Several of the most vocal Republican opponents 
of campaign finance reform are on the Rules Committee. They are 
opponents, in particular, of including Congress in investigations of 
what may, at the same time, be legal, but also improper, unethical, or 
wrong by any fair standard. These are the same people who refuse to 
give the Governmental Affairs investigative funding to begin with.
  Now, they will be the investigators of what they so adamantly oppose. 
They will be the investigators of what they so adamantly oppose. Foxes 
guarding hen houses is indeed a good analogy. They got their way. To 
me, it is a high price.
  The amendment I had proposed would change all this. Very simple. All 
it does is restore the original Governmental Affairs Committee scope of 
this investigation. It restores the scope the committee voted on 
unanimously, with not one dissenting vote on the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, including

[[Page S2100]]

three members that are also members of the Rules Committee. The 
amendment would allow the committee to look into all sorts of campaign 
behavior, whether illegal, legal, improper or unethical. That is what 
the American people want, a complete look at this whole problem. 
Restoring this scope to our investigation would allow us to conduct a 
broad, far-reaching inquiry into our current campaign system.
  I think it is a high price that Republican leadership has paid to 
assuage a few Members and to place them in what will probably turn out 
to be a controlling position of any investigation into other than just 
strict illegalities. The Rules Committee would be permitted to look at 
issues surrounding soft money and independent expenditures. Our 
Committee on Governmental Affairs would be permitted to look at issues 
surrounding soft money and independent expenditures, which are two of 
our biggest problems today, but in most cases our committee would only 
be able to look at those which are illegal, we believe are illegal 
going in. And the Rules Committee would have everything else except 
those matters which are completely illegal.
  If we followed my resolution, we would restore the scope, allow us to 
follow the money trail, and let the chips fall where they may.
  Mr. President, I am fully aware there are serious differences of 
opinion surrounding how this resolution, S. 39, came to the floor, and 
there are differences of opinion surrounding what is going to happen to 
it. But there are probably few minds undecided as to how they will vote 
on these amendments and, in particular, on my amendment before it was 
amended here by the majority leader. But before any votes are cast, I 
hope all Senators will take a long, hard look at what has been proposed 
by the Rules Committee in S. 39. I would ask you to look ahead, look 
ahead about 20 years when your kids have grown up. The majority 
leadership in the Senate may well have changed. It may be in different 
hands by that time. I am sure we would all hope that when our children 
and grandchildren have reached their adult years, the political system 
will have been improved and political fundraising will not be in the 
mess 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, legal, wrong, improper or unethical. The amendment I 
was proposing to S. 39 would take us in that direction. If the shoe is 
on the foot 20 years from now, would that change any Republican votes 
today? I don't know. Think about it. They have an advantage today; it 
is about a 2 to 1 advantage, and they are preventing us from really 
looking into any of these matters on a meaningful basis.
  Mr. President, the substitute that was submitted by the majority 
leader would once again stand on its head what I think to be fairness 
and what the American people want. It would restrict us on the 
Governmental Affairs Committee as to what we can do. And I repeat what 
I said going in. This was not something we asked for. It was something 
that the Republican leadership decided to give to that committee, and 
then, when it turns out that some of their own members do not want us 
looking into some of these dark corners, they say, OK, we are going to 
take that assignment back. And because we have the members who are most 
objecting to any campaign reform on the Rules Committee, they are now 
going to look into some of these other areas.
  I am sure the chairman of that committee, Senator Warner, my good 
friend across the aisle, will do everything he can, but knowing what 
the membership of the committee is and knowing the views of the 
membership on the Rules Committee with regard to campaign finance 
reform, he is going to have a herculean job to try and get out 
meaningful legislation, legislation that is going to do anything 
meaningful for campaign finance reform. I do not ever go around saying 
I feel sorry for other Senators, but as far as getting anything out of 
that committee that is going to have a title of campaign finance reform 
on it, it is going to be a very difficult job for him. He is being a 
good soldier in taking this thing on.
  Senator Thompson has said, well, OK, I guess something is better than 
nothing, and so he has not been involved with the debate over on the 
floor, so far at least, but I just think this is wrong. I think what 
they are trying to do with this substitute amendment to my amendment 
this morning is wrong. It spells out that the Rules Committee will be 
even more direct in denying us what we thought our investigative scope 
was on the Governmental Affairs Committee, a task, I repeat for the 
third time, we did not ask to have. It was assigned to the committee.
  I want to make one other statement, too, and then I will turn this 
over to other people who are waiting to make their statements.
  Mr. President, yesterday the big thrust by the Republican Party by 
any observation was we have problems with China and we have problems 
with campaign financing coming in from China and whether it occurred, 
whether it was against the law, who did it, were there any favors 
given, and so on. And that was being used yesterday almost as if, 
although it wasn't so stated, they are for investigating that and we 
somehow are not just as much in full agreement of investigating that 
because it somehow involves the Democratic administration.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. I am committed to looking 
into anything that happened in that area. The President has said he 
wants to look into that area. And I do not doubt his sincerity in that. 
It is a blot on the whole body politic. Republican, Democrat, Senate, 
House, everybody else knows that has to be looked into.
  So all the charts that were out on the floor yesterday showing Huang 
and Trie and all this and the subcategories and the fine print down 
here that implied there has to be some new look into that area as 
though we were opposing that on our side, they were for it and we were 
against it, that is wrong. I will borrow their charts and I will use 
them on the floor myself on the Democratic side if that is needed, and 
I am sure the President would like to have them down at the White House 
to show what has been dug out so far that is wrong, and he wants to 
correct it. So that is not one there is any difference on. Let us just 
make certain of that.
  So for all those reasons I rise to oppose the proposal by the 
majority leader, the substitute amendment to the amendment that I had 
proposed. I will have other questions about some of the items in S. 39 
as we go along.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I first wish to thank my distinguished colleague for his 
references to the Senator from Virginia. And I wish to give him and all 
Members of the Senate my personal assurance that in my capacity as 
chairman, I will exercise due diligence, the fairest, most aggressive 
action by our committee in the areas delineated by the amendment that 
was sent to the desk here momentarily by the distinguished majority 
leader and joined in by myself.
  We have clearly through the years--the Rules Committee--had 
jurisdiction in this area, and we will pursue it. I hasten to point out 
that the three members of the Rules Committee are members of the 
distinguished ranking member's committee, the Governmental Affairs 
Committee. Indeed, the past chairman, Senator Stevens, has joined in 
supporting the amendment in the Rules Committee by the Senator from 
Virginia, which is now the underlying amendment here in the ardent 
debate this morning. To suggest that just one or two or three, or 
whatever it is, members of the Rules Committee can stop either the 
committee or the Senate from, at this juncture, a full and thorough 
investigation of all aspects of soft money, all aspects of other 
alleged areas of campaign finance or campaign reform that need to be 
addressed by the Senate I think is not a wise step to take at this 
point in time.
  Mr. President, echoing, again, the very important message that the 
majority leader stated earlier today, we have to get on. This committee 
is ready to go to work. Reports are coming in that possible sources of 
evidence might be disappearing. I will leave that to others to discuss. 
But I do know that we are tied up here on process, and

[[Page S2101]]

I hope we can move at the earliest possible time to vote on the 
amendment of the Senator from Ohio, and the underlying amendment, and 
of course the amendment by the distinguished majority leader. That will 
be decided upon by the leadership.
  But I urge all Senators to come to the floor now. Now is the 
opportunity to give your thoughts on this important matter. Let us get 
on with it so the committees as allocated under the resolutions here 
can get on with their business.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I have the honor of serving on both 
the Rules Committee, under the able leadership of the Senator from 
Virginia, and the honor and distinction of serving on Governmental 
Affairs Committee, under the leadership of Senator Thompson.
  I witnessed, a month ago, a rare moment of bipartisanship. Democrats 
and Republicans came together in the Governmental Affairs Committee. We 
were apart from the glare of the television lights or the pressure of 
partisan leadership, and we reached what I think was a sound and a good 
judgment. Senator Thompson offered honest leadership, and he came to us 
with a proposed scope of investigation. Senator Glenn responded by not 
only accepting his scope of an investigation, but he expanded it. For 
several weeks, while we differed on the timing and the expense, we 
operated in a general belief that we had defined the parameters of a 
review of the 1996 Federal elections in the United States. That scope 
offered us a chance to not only look at specific misdeeds, but to 
inform this institution and to educate the American people generally 
about the need for general campaign finance reform and how individual 
parts of the system were now broken.
  Our concern was that we learn, not only about the 1996 Presidential 
campaign, but that campaign be put in perspective in how previous 
Presidential campaigns operated so we could learn if there was a 
change, and if there was a change why it happened--both to find those 
who may have committed wrongful acts, but also how to improve the 
future process.
  We also reflected, I think, the reality that Presidential campaigns 
do not take place in a vacuum. Indeed, there is no distinguishing line 
between where a Presidential campaign's financing operations stop and 
the congressional campaigns begin. The money, the advertising, the 
activities, are coordinated and intertwined. So our scope included both 
the Presidential campaigns and congressional campaign committees and 
those of individual Members. Our scope also reflected two other 
specific areas that probably represent the greatest change in electoral 
politics in the United States in 1996, the use of nonprofit 
organizations, often as surrogates for partisan political activity, and 
the use of independent expenditures, where soft money is used to 
influence Federal campaigns.
  This scope was broad, it was comprehensive, it is what this 
institution and the country requires. And only a month after reaching 
this agreement, before the first hearing is held, the first witness 
notified, the first lesson learned, it is being put to a premature 
death. There is enough cynicism in America about our electoral system. 
The system has already convinced enough Americans that it does not 
operate and it does not reflect their needs or provide room for their 
concerns. We risk, today, adding one more pile of dirt on this mountain 
of doubt. The resolution that now comes before the Senate is an 
extraordinary departure from the bipartisan scope that Senator Glenn 
and Senator Thompson reached previously. It has become, in my judgment, 
a proxy fight in the larger battle for campaign finance reform, a 
cynical effort that the Nation, and the Senate as an institution, can 
be focused on a few narrow problems so the underlying deterioration of 
the Nation's system of campaign finance laws will not be noticed or 
exposed, the pressure building in the Nation to change the laws 
generally will be avoided.
  So, in place of this bipartisan scope for what hopefully could have 
been meaningful hearings, the Senate, instead, is given a new scope of 
activities for the Governmental Affairs Committee. It differs in 
several important ways, but none more significant than that it 
identifies the scope of these hearings not as the Presidential campaign 
of the last two cycles generally, the operations of congressional 
campaign finance or nonprofits or independent expenditures--the new 
standard is illegal activities.
  If illegal activities are to operate as the scope of the Governmental 
Affairs hearings, we are then establishing a committee with sufficient 
money, enough time, but no purpose. Illegal activities in our system 
would have to be defined by the standards as a people we have come to 
recognize would constitute an illegal act. Illegal acts in our country 
are defined by a system of justice. They require a burden of proof and 
a requisite state of mind. Indeed, in our system of justice, we have 
the highest levels of establishing illegal activity, perhaps, of any 
nation on Earth.
  During the hearings in the Rules Committee last week, I asked Senator 
Thompson whether illegal activities in his mind were synonymous with a 
criminal act. Indeed, we were assured that this was the purpose and 
illegal activity was, by definition, it appeared, a criminal act. The 
Senate needs to consider this definition before it accepts this scope, 
because a violation of the campaign finance laws by the President of 
the United States, or Senator Dole, or any Member of the House or 
Senate is not a criminal act unless there was a willful intent. Indeed, 
virtually none of the allegations raised in the popular press regarding 
the financing of congressional and Presidential campaigns would appear 
willful or potentially to meet the standard required to even be the 
subject of these hearings.
  In the other body there were serious questions raised about the 
operation of tax-exempt foundations; whether or not the tax laws had 
been violated in order to engage in influencing political activity.
  The operations of a tax-exempt foundation are not a criminal act 
unless there was a willful intent, which appears to be missing in the 
allegations made to date with regard to tax-exempt organizations.
  Finally, there is the question of the operation of independent 
expenditures generally. The most significant change in the political 
culture in the United States in 1996 has been the operation of 
independent expenditures by philosophical or issue-oriented or partisan 
organizations to use soft money to enter the system. And yet, both that 
soft money and the operation of these independent expenditures would 
not rightfully be within the jurisdiction of this committee if we 
maintain the standard of illegal or criminal act.
  The Senate, therefore, Mr. President, is left with a broad question 
of policy as we approach these hearings. If it is our intention to find 
specific criminal activity in the 1996 Federal campaign system, then I 
believe Members can rest assured that the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation and the Justice Department will find those acts and 
people will be brought to justice.
  But Democrats and Republicans in the Governmental Affairs Committee 
began these discussions and the planning of this investigation with a 
different purpose. It was our goal to assure the American people that 
we would find not only those acts that were illegal but those that were 
improper. We would disclose to the American people those activities 
which do not belong in our system of electoral politics, expose them to 
the light of day in the hope that the net result would be a change of 
the law and a rising standard for operating political campaigns in the 
United States, while reassuring the American public of the integrity of 
the system.
  That, Mr. President, is the question before the Senate: a narrow 
hearing, cynically designed to focus attention on one campaign of the 
President of the United States, or an honest conversation about the 
state of electoral politics in the United States today and what we can 
do to change it and be part of a rising standard. The vote on this 
resolution, on the amendments that follow, is a vote on that question.
  Mr. President, there is, finally, the additional issue of the date 
for concluding the committee's work that needs to be part of this 
discussion and fully explained. While Democrats and Republicans in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee had generally agreed

[[Page S2102]]

to a scope, there was always disagreement about a concluding date. I 
believe that Senator Thompson came to the Senate with the best of 
intentions and good purpose in his belief that there should be no 
concluding date for the fear that witnesses would withhold information 
if they knew they could wait until the committee concluded its work. 
But there is another competing purpose, I believe, that requires the 
Senate to establish a concluding date, which I now believe both 
Democrats and Republicans accept.
  These hearings are about educating the American people and ourselves 
about our system of campaign finance. These hearings are about finding 
specific misdeeds or illegalities, but they are also about something 
much more practical and immediate.
  Within a year, the United States will begin a system of a general 
Federal election. With all that we now know about the breakdown of the 
campaign finance laws in the United States in 1996, it is inexcusable 
and inexplicable if the U.S. Senate were to allow this country to 
proceed to another general election in 1998 without a change in how 
this Nation governs its laws, governs these campaigns and finances this 
electoral system. It is imperative that the Senate retain a concluding 
date for these hearings so that the U.S. Congress and the American 
people have the benefit of everything that is learned to proceed to 
reform.
  It is also, I believe, Mr. President, necessary to note that while 
specific changes in the law may follow the conclusions of these 
hearings, it is generally not necessary to wait for these hearings to 
conclude or, indeed, even to begin to proceed generally with campaign 
finance reform.
  The hearings by the Governmental Affairs Committee may teach us a 
great deal about specific misdeeds or problems in the system, but every 
Member of this Senate already knows enough about the breakdown of the 
campaign finance laws in this country to proceed immediately for a 
review and a change in comprehensive campaign finance reform.
  And so, Mr. President, I conclude with the hope that partisanship for 
a moment could be set aside for a review of the 1996 elections and our 
campaign finance system; that this country, through the voices of this 
Senate, could have an honest conversation about the health of our 
democracy and the operations of our democratic elections. That will 
require a standard far different than illegal activities. It will have 
to be far more general in focus than the Presidential campaign of 1996. 
It will require a conclusion at a date certain so that we can proceed 
to changes in the law, and it will require that, through the exercise 
of honest leadership, we begin the process of campaign finance reform, 
even as we learn new and troubling problems about the operation of the 
system.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder, while my good friend from 
Virginia is on the floor, if he would comment on a statement which he 
made yesterday and which the Senator from New Jersey made reference to 
indirectly, and that is the question as to whether or not the word 
``illegal'' is broader than the word ``criminal.''
  Yesterday, the good chairman of the Rules Committee said the 
following, and I am wondering if the Senator from New Jersey might also 
listen to this, because it gets to the very critical point which was 
raised by his comments. The chairman of the Rules Committee said 
yesterday that the Rules Committee gave ``the Governmental Affairs 
Committee a scope of the investigation and illegal,'' he said, 
``illegal is a very broad scope.'' He added, ``It goes beyond. And I 
will at a later time today put in the Record the definitions of 
illegal.''
  But this is now the key sentence from my good friend from Virginia: 
``But it goes beyond just criminal assertions of allegations of 
criminal violations. It goes beyond that.''
  That is at the bottom of page 2057.
  The chairman of the Rules Committee is assuring the Senate that the 
definition of ``illegal'' goes beyond ``criminal,'' and that is in 
keeping with, I think, a common understanding of the word ``illegal.''
  I don't know whether the chairman put the definitions of ``illegal'' 
into the Record. We were unable to find them.
  So my first question of the chairman of the Rules Committee would be 
whether or not those definitions have now been put into the Record.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we did discuss this in our hearing. We 
discussed it yesterday and essentially this is a matter that is going 
to be placed directly before the chairman, the distinguished ranking 
member, my good friend from Ohio, Mr. Glenn, and the members of the 
committee.
  I hope, in the context of their deliberations on what they define as 
``illegal,'' they will refer to traditional sources. I have here the 
dictionary definition of ``illegal,'' which I will read. We, of course, 
recognize it as being an adjective. It means, ``not legal, contrary to 
existing statutes, regulations, et cetera, unauthorized.''
  Then I went to Black's Law Dictionary, which all of us had in law 
school--at least I did. That is the first book I bought. As a matter of 
fact, I still have it. I really have coveted that little personal item. 
So I went back and read in that, and I cite that. ``Illegal,'' 
``against or not authorized by law.'' ``Illegal contract,'' ``A 
contract is illegal where its formation of performance is expressly 
forbidden by civil or criminal statute or where penalty is imposed for 
doing an act agreed upon.''
  So I say to my colleagues, there seems to be not what I would call a 
great wealth of debate. It is interesting we went back to examine court 
opinions. I would have thought in the history of our country someone 
would have argued that, but I am not sure that anything we found in the 
course of our research shed a great deal of light. Perhaps my 
distinguished colleague from Michigan, who is a student in many areas, 
could refer to some source that he has broader than what the Senator 
from Virginia has provided this morning.
  Mr. LEVIN. No. I am happy with that assurance from the Senator.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. In just a minute.
  I am very glad to hear that assurance from the Senator, that the 
intention of this resolution which he offered, that ``illegal'' 
includes violations of law, including civil law or other law, and goes 
beyond violations of criminal law. That gets us a little bit further 
towards what this committee ought to be doing. But nonetheless, it is 
an important clarification for the committee.
  I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might just reply to my good friend.
  There is documentation. I examined both of those precedents at the 
time that I drafted the resolution.
  Mr. President, the Senate is now working its will on the resolution 
that was proposed by the Rules Committee. This body eventually will 
vote and decide the issue. But I suggest, with all due respect to my 
colleague from Michigan and the distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on Governmental Affairs, the ranking member, and others, that we are 
making sort of legislative history as to what we think is the meaning 
of the term ``illegal'' and what we think this committee should do.
  I hope that that legislative history that we are making for ourselves 
as a body will be the guidepost for that committee and that they will 
not continually be searching as to how to get around or evade what is 
the will of the Senate. That will be expressed eventually through a 
series of votes and the passage of some document in the form of a 
resolution. It is my hope that the resolution of the Rules Committee 
remains intact, but that is yet to be seen. So that will be the 
guidepost, the beacon.
  I am confident that the chairman and the ranking member and the other 
members of that committee will in turn be guided by this very important 
debate on the scope of the jurisdiction.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I want to thank the Senator from Michigan for raising 
this issue because it appears to me we have come to the heart of the 
matter.
  The Senate has given conflicting interpretations that make all the 
difference in the scope of these hearings

[[Page S2103]]

potentially. Senator Warner's views, as the author of the legislation, 
should be controlling. But it is important to note that they are in 
direct contradiction with testimony given to the Rules Committee by 
Senator Thompson.

  Senator Thompson's interpretation of ``illegal'' is that they had to 
constitute a criminal act. I am very reassured by Chairman Warner's 
interpretation that ``illegal act'' would include a violation of a 
civil code. I assume, therefore, that the Senate could conclude that a 
violation of the campaign finance laws, even if it did not include a 
criminal penalty, is included in Senator Warner's definition.
  I am also seeking his reassurance, through the Senator from Michigan, 
that a violation of the Tax Code, though perhaps not sufficiently 
willful to involve a criminal penalty, would be an illegal act and, 
therefore, part of the investigation.
  Indeed, I am hoping that we can be reassured that any violation of 
the regulations of the U.S. Government or any of its departments or 
agencies, any violation of the civil or criminal law, of which there is 
specific information that is sufficiently credible to warrant the 
attention of the committee, would be the subject of these 
investigations--meaning, that it does not require that a member of the 
committee have definitive proof to establish a criminal level of 
culpability and it does not have to relate specifically to a criminal 
penalty for violation.
  I was hoping to receive his assurance, as a member of both the Rules 
Committee and the Governmental Affairs Committee, that if I come before 
this committee with a specific act, based on a broad but credible 
allegation, for violation of code or regulation, that will be 
sufficient for the scope of this investigation.
  Through the Senator from Michigan, that is the assurance that I am 
seeking.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at the present time I have stated my views 
as to the word ``illegal'' and its interpretation and its breadth. I 
predicated that interpretation carefully upon a dictionary definition 
as well as one citation from Black's Law Dictionary, which is somewhat 
broader.
  But I want to make certain that my distinguished colleague from New 
Jersey pauses for a moment to go back and look at the Record as to 
exactly what Chairman Thompson said. And, if it is agreeable--I do not 
want to interrupt the distinguished Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. WARNER. I read from page 74 of the transcript of the hearing of 
the Rules Committee on March 6.
  The distinguished Senator from New Jersey was speaking.

       Senator Torricelli. Mr. Chairman, if I could just for a 
     moment--I do not want to delay the committee, but when the 
     hearing began, I expressed concern, Senator Thompson, that 
     the standard was being set extraordinarily high in order to 
     address any campaign abuses because of the ``illegal'' 
     language that is used.
       Do I understand that when I was absent from the room for a 
     moment, in answer to Senator Ford's question, you have 
     equated ``illegal'' with ``criminal'' and that in your mind 
     they are relatively indistinguishable as the standard you are 
     going to use in deciding which campaign activities are within 
     our jurisdiction?

  I will digress to go back to the colloquy with Senator Ford. I now 
read from page 65.

       Senator Ford. Understand that. And we are used to that. But 
     am I correct that violations of Federal campaign laws are not 
     criminal?
       Senator Thompson. Senator, I would rather not try to give 
     you a legal opinion off the top of my head.

  Then the colloquy went on, in which Senator Thompson further said:

       Well, my idea, campaign finance reform does not have much 
     to do with the statutory regulatory framework that you are 
     referring to.

  So at that point it seems to me that Senator Thompson was not 
definitive on this issue.
  Now I return to page 74 where the distinguished Senator from New 
Jersey had posed the question, and I shall read Senator Thompson's 
reply:

       Senator Thompson: Senator, I cannot say that in all 
     respects, in every situation, that they are exactly the same, 
     and I would rather not try to give you a precise legal 
     opinion that will stay with me for the rest of the year. I 
     think you are entitled to look into that if you want to do 
     that, certainly. The illegal standard has been used time and 
     time again with regard to other investigations. You allude to 
     the high standard. It just goes to show whose ox is being 
     gored, I suppose, in these matters, because I have been 
     spending a lot of time answering some of my colleagues' 
     questions about how can you subpoena somebody just on public 
     information. You are tying up their lives. They are having to 
     hire attorneys and all of that, and now others have a concern 
     that we are not, it is not easy enough to get to them. In 
     other words, the standard is too high. So those are all the 
     things that we are going to have to balance out, but I am not 
     sure that my top of the head legal opinion on the intricacies 
     on the difference between illegal and criminal are as good as 
     what you might be able to get from somebody who has got the 
     books in front of him and can look it up.

  I believe that is somewhat different from what my distinguished 
colleague said in his earlier comments as to the position taken by 
Chairman Thompson.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. If the Senator from Michigan would yield.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. The discussion comes down to the phrase of Senator 
Thompson, saying that criminal and illegal may not in every situation 
be exactly the same.
  For purposes of these hearings, if we were to do justice to what we 
want to achieve, it needs to be established that they specifically are 
not the same. It is not sufficient for the Senate to know that there 
may be some circumstances where illegal does not mean criminal. The 
point is illegal is not criminal. We seek civil jurisdiction, we seek 
violations of regulations, and we seek here on the floor to 
disassociate the two words.
  I believe, for the record, the Senator from Virginia has done a great 
deal in allaying my fears, and I think we have separated permanently, 
irrevocably the two words. For purposes of this investigation they are 
unrelated, they are unconnected and never the two shall meet again.
  I think, therefore, this discussion has been helpful.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask the indulgence of my colleagues to 
pose on behalf of the majority leader a unanimous consent.
  On behalf of Leader Lott I ask unanimous consent that the time 
between now and 12:30 be equally divided for debate between Senator 
Warner and Senator Glenn, and further when the Senate reconvenes today 
at 2:15 there be an additional 15 minutes of debate equally divided 
between the two leaders or their designees, and immediately following 
that debate the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to the Lott 
Amendment No. 22, and no amendments be in order prior to the vote in 
relation to amendment 22.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, are we under control time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Between now and 12:30 the time will be equally 
divided.
  Mr. WARNER. We are under control starting now.
  Mr. LEVIN. Can I ask the Senator from Ohio to yield 5 minutes.
  Mr. GLENN. I yield 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the question that I put to the Senator from 
Virginia is very important in terms of the future of this 
investigation, and his answer reasserting today what he said yesterday, 
which is that the jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs Committee 
will go beyond criminal assertions and goes to civil violations of law 
as well as criminal violations of law, will help clarify a very 
important question for the committee down the road. I thank him for 
that.

  It leaves open a huge question as to whether we ought to be able to 
look into improper practices, corrupt practices that are not 
technically violations of law, but nonetheless it is helpful, and I 
want to thank my friend from Virginia for that. I want to get to this 
question next.
  Mr. WARNER. If the Senator will yield on my time, I was very careful 
to say I was speaking for myself, and I used precise language from the 
dictionary and one legal reference. That decision as to the experience 
of illegal, again, is to be left to the combined judgment, hopefully, 
of all members of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and using as a 
precedent that document that will be finally agreed upon by the U.S. 
Senate today or tomorrow.

[[Page S2104]]

  Now, that is the response that I gave very carefully.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator for that response, and I also point 
out that response comes from the chairman of the Rules Committee, who 
is a sponsor of the pending resolution. This Senate, I think, has a 
right to traditionally place great stock in the sponsors' 
interpretation of his own resolution. That is precisely what I believe 
the Senate will be doing when we vote, because even though we differ as 
to whether or not the scope should get to practices which should be 
made illegal, practices which are offensive, or practices which violate 
what the public wants us to be doing, nonetheless the fact that the 
chairman of the Rules Committee is asserting to the Senate that the 
word illegal in his judgment and his intention as the drafter of this 
resolution goes to both--goes to any violation of law, not just a 
criminal violation, is a very important statement for the Senate and 
for the future of this investigation.
  Following that statement, I ask my good friend from Virginia the 
following: That under his interpretation, therefore, would the 
Governmental Affairs Committee be able to investigate violations of the 
Federal Elections Campaign Act?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time I reserve the timing of my 
response to that question. I have very carefully laid down what I 
believe is the definition of illegal but I am not prepared at this time 
to give you a response to that question.
  Mr. LEVIN. Would that be true with other specific questions?
  So that what we will have when we vote will be the assurance of the 
chairman of the Rules Committee as to what his interpretation of the 
word illegal is in a general way but not a specific application.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is correct.
  I hasten to point out while I am privileged to be the chairman, I am 
not so sure the total weight of this debate would shift to what this 
Senator has to say.
  I come back again, the Senate will work its will. This resolution 
that I offered which is the underlying matter before the Senate could 
well be amended. I hope not, but it could be. So I want to await the 
final decision of the Senate before I make any further comment as to 
what my response will be to the question.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend.
  I have a parliamentary inquiry. Under the pending amendment to the 
amendment, the language in subsection (c) says that ``the Committee on 
Rules and Administration, not the Committee on Governmental Affairs, 
has jurisdiction under rule 25 over all proposed legislation and other 
matters relating to--''
  And then No. 2 is ``corrupt practices.''
  Now, my parliamentary inquiry is this: Under Senate Resolution 54, 
does the Governmental Affairs Committee have jurisdiction as of this 
moment to study and investigate corruption or unethical practices and 
improper practices between Government personnel and corporations, 
individuals, companies, et cetera?
  As of this moment, my parliamentary inquiry is, under Senate 
Resolution 54, does the Governmental Affairs Committee have 
jurisdiction to investigate corruption, unethical practices, and any 
and all improper practices, as I previously read?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The jurisdiction of a committee is set out by 
rule XXV. Neither this resolution or rule XXV can explicitly change or 
alter without an explicit change in language.
  Mr. LEVIN. Does the Governmental Affairs Committee, as of this 
moment, have jurisdiction, as set forth in Senate Resolution 54, to 
investigate corruption, unethical practices, and any and all improper 
practices between Government personnel and corporations, individuals, 
companies, or persons affiliated therewith, doing business with the 
Government, et cetera? That is my parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Committees, historically, have investigated 
areas within their jurisdiction under rule XXV. The jurisdiction of a 
committee is normally based on what is referred to that committee and 
its jurisdiction.
  Mr. LEVIN. My parliamentary inquiry is, Does Senate Resolution 54 
refer that subject to this Governmental Affairs Committee? That is my 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Matters are not referred by resolution. 
Matters are referred by the Presiding Officer of the Senate.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, what we have here is, I believe, the first 
time that the U.S. Senate is going to remove from a committee of 
jurisdiction its right to investigate something that has been within 
its jurisdiction traditionally, as has corruption and improper 
practices. They have been looked into by the Governmental Affairs 
Committee over the decades. They are specifically referred, in Senate 
Resolution 54, to the Governmental Affairs Committee.
  I don't think there is any doubt in anybody's mind--and I will ask 
the question again--that the Governmental Affairs Committee has 
jurisdiction to investigate improper practices. Now, that doesn't mean 
the Rules Committee doesn't have jurisdiction to legislate. It does. 
But it means that the committee of jurisdiction--this is one of the 
great investigatory committees of this body, traditionally, which has 
looked into illegal practices, and legal practices which should be made 
illegal--is being taken off the case, is being told that what is within 
its jurisdiction cannot be investigated, even though the unanimous vote 
of the Governmental Affairs Committee was to investigate improper 
practices.
  There is no doubt, I don't think, in anybody's mind that we have that 
jurisdiction, which is the reason why this amendment is before us, 
which is to remove the jurisdiction of the committee into improper and 
corrupt practices with respect to the 1996 Federal elections. That is 
what we will be voting on today--whether or not the U.S. Senate wants 
to take that power away from a committee that has jurisdiction to look 
into and investigate improper and corrupt practices. It is 
unprecedented.
  Now, does the Rules Committee have legislative jurisdiction? Yes. But 
the Governmental Affairs Committee has investigative jurisdiction. I 
don't think anybody doubts that we have investigative jurisdiction, 
should we seek to exercise it and look into improper and corrupt 
practices. I haven't heard anybody allege that. As a matter of fact, 
the reason the amendment is pending before us is to remove that 
jurisdiction from us when it comes to campaign finance reform. I wonder 
if the Senator from Ohio would yield 3 additional minutes to me.
  Mr. GLENN. I yield such time as the Senator from Michigan may desire.
  Mr. LEVIN. This is an unprecedented removal of jurisdiction from a 
Senate committee that is seeking to exercise what is within its 
jurisdiction by Senate rule, by Senate resolution--Senate Resolution 
54--which specifically refers to improper and corrupt practices, and by 
precedent.

  Now, why are we doing this? Why is the majority about to tell a 
committee that has jurisdiction to investigate that it may not do so? 
The answer is, the fear that there will be momentum given to campaign 
finance reform. That is the issue. It is that fear that so terrorizes, 
apparently, some in the majority of this body that if there is an 
investigation carried out by the Governmental Affairs Committee, which 
it now has jurisdiction to carry out, it will somehow or other give 
momentum to something which, apparently, a majority of the majority 
does not want.
  But this is unprecedented, and we are skating now out on a pond which 
this Senate, I don't believe, has done before. I have heard my good 
friend from Virginia say, ``Well, there is no legislative authority in 
Governmental Affairs in the area of campaign finance reform.'' That's 
true. But we have investigative authority. There is no authority in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee to get involved in recommending changes 
in the criminal law. We don't have jurisdiction to legislate in the 
area of the criminal law, generally. That is in the area of the 
Judiciary Committee. Yet, we are left with the jurisdiction here to 
investigate illegal activities, even though we don't have legislative 
jurisdiction, for the most part, in the area of criminal law.
  Where is the logic here? We are told you can't legislate in the area 
of campaign finance reform. Therefore, we are not going to let you 
investigate, even

[[Page S2105]]

though you otherwise would have jurisdiction to do so.
  (Mr. INHOFE assumed the chair.)
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator will entertain a comment, 
which I hope is constructive and helpful to my good friend and 
colleague, you are talking about the actual Rules Committee as if we 
just took everything away from them. Let's go back and take a moment to 
see exactly what happened, because I know, having worked these 18 years 
with my good friend--this is on my time--that he deals in precision. We 
have served together side by side these many years on the Armed 
Services Committee.
  Now, let me walk my colleague through exactly what happened. First, 
we have the Standing Rules of the Senate, which defines the basic 
parameters of the authority of the Governmental Affairs Committee. Each 
year, Mr. President--and it is rather interesting--the chairman of 
Governmental Affairs comes to the Rules Committee with a twofold 
request: first, for a sum of money to operate the committee for the 
coming fiscal year, and then a request to enlarge the jurisdiction as 
set forth in the Standing Rules of the Senate. That was done this year. 
I hasten to point out to my good friend----
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, can I get into this for a minute? I don't 
think we accepted the enlargement of it. It was more to carry it out 
than to enlarge it.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I disagree with my distinguished colleague 
and ranking member. I would like to engage him in the colloquy at the 
proper time. I want to refer to Senate Resolution 54, which was passed 
by this body upon the recommendation of the chairman and ranking member 
of the Rules Committee. All I have to say to my good friend from 
Kentucky--and we welcome him back this morning----
  Mr. FORD. You went back to the rules.
  Mr. WARNER. The Rules Committee issued Senate Resolution 54, which 
was voted on by the Senate.
  Any reading of Senate Resolution 54 shows a considerable broadening 
and enlargement beyond the scope of the authority vested in that 
committee under the Standing Rules of the Senate. That is my point. And 
it is, I say to my friend from Kentucky and my friend from Michigan, an 
enlargement. Let me read the language as recommended by the chairman 
and presumably the ranking member and the Rules Committee accepted it.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator would tell us what he is reading 
from.
  Mr. WARNER. Yes. I am reading from Senate Resolution 54 which is that 
document voted on in the Senate to give $4.53 million to the committee 
to conduct its affairs, and this is the language of the charter.
  Mr. LEVIN. On page 16?
  Mr. WARNER. Page 18 of Senate Resolution 54. I will pause for a 
moment until my colleague has it. Section (d)(1).

       The committee or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof 
     is authorized to study or investigate--
       (A) The efficiency and economy of operations of all 
     branches of the Government including the possible existence 
     of fraud, misfeasance, malfeasance, collusion, mismanagement, 
     incompetence, corruption, or unethical practices, waste, 
     extravagance, conflicts of interest, and the improper 
     expenditure of Government funds in transactions, contracts, 
     and activities of the Government or of Government officials 
     and employees and any and all such improper practices between 
     Government personnel and corporations, individuals, 
     companies, or persons affiliated therewith, doing business 
     with the Government; and the compliance or noncompliance of 
     such corporations, companies, or individuals or other 
     entities with the rules, regulations, and laws governing the 
     various governmental agencies and its relationships with the 
     public.

  That is your language. It is broad. It includes the word 
``corruption,'' which is not in the standing rules for the Governmental 
Affairs Committee, which is, Mr. President, of course, in the standing 
rules for the Rules Committee.
  So the Senator made the statement that we had taken it all away.
  Mr. LEVIN. Senate Resolution 54 now is governing.
  Mr. WARNER. Senate Resolution 54 governs the expenditure of $4.53 
million.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator agrees with me.
  Mr. WARNER. Beg pardon?
  Mr. LEVIN. Senate Resolution 54 is what is currently in effect.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. What is in effect gives the Governmental Affairs Committee 
the power to look at corrupt practices, just as I read--I read from the 
exact same Senate Resolution that the good Senator from Virginia read 
that we have jurisdiction in Governmental Affairs to look at 
corruption, unethical practices, and improper practices. That is what 
is in effect now and that is what would be changed by the pending 
resolution before us.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, what the Senator said, as I understood him 
to say, we took away all your jurisdiction. That is not correct. As to 
the $4.53 million, it is there. As to the second allocation of funds in 
the nature of a supplemental, it is quite true the Rules Committee laid 
down in the resolution a more precise definition as to what you do with 
the second allocation of funding and that is restricted to illegal 
activities in the 1996 campaigns, Presidential and congressional. But 
the Senator made the statement that it took it all away. I am pointing 
out the distinction. No, no, it relates to the second allocation of 
funding.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is the Senator from Virginia saying today that relative to 
the allocation of funds in Senate Resolution 54, the committee is then 
free to look at improper practices in the area of campaign financing? 
Is that what the Senator is saying today? Because I thought I heard 
something different.
  Mr. WARNER. What I am saying is the language sets forth the 
definition, and it is up to the chairman and ranking member and the 
Governmental Affairs members to decide for themselves.
  Mr. LEVIN. My question--
  Mr. WARNER. What I am saying for great clarity, for the second 
allocation, supplemental funding, the Rules Committee exercised what I 
regard as its authority to restrict the use of those funds to the 
clause ``illegal'' for 1996.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is my friend, however, saying as to the original 
allocation of funds that the committee may exercise jurisdiction to 
look into improper practices or practices which should be made illegal? 
Is that what my friend from Virginia is saying?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my response to that question is that the 
use of the first allocation of funds pursuant to this resolution is 
limited to this, and it is up to the Members to interpret it. And, 
second, it would be my hope that the members would interpret this 
language in accordance with whatever resolution is finally passed by 
the Senate today because I view that as an expression by the Senate as 
to what the scope should be of activities of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee with regard to both the underlying $4.53 million and the 
additional funds.

  Mr. LEVIN. I want to be real clear at this point. What the Senator, 
the chairman of the Rules Committee, is telling us is that technically 
we can spend the first pot of money as we determine to do so within our 
jurisdiction and within Senate Resolution 54, but as to the 
supplemental funds, that would be governed by the pending amendment, if 
it passes. Is that correct?
  Mr. WARNER. Not necessarily the pending amendment. The ultimate 
resolution passed by the Senate.
  Mr. LEVIN. Ultimate resolution.
  Mr. WARNER. I simply say, going back to the underlying rules of the 
Senate, it was enlarged in Senate Resolution 54. You can decide for 
yourself, but I hope you will decide within the framework of this 
debate and the ultimate resolution, which resolution applies to the 
second allocation of funds.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, then if I could conclude, let me reiterate 
what I said as I think it is still accurate. If we adopt this 
resolution today, we will be removing from the Governmental Affairs 
Committee a jurisdiction which it now has to investigate corrupt 
practices, improper practices, practices which should be made illegal, 
practices which we could investigate within the Senate Resolution 54 
jurisdiction of our committee--the current jurisdiction of our 
committee would allow us to look at improper practices, but what the 
pending resolution tells us, if it is adopted and becomes the final 
expression of this body's will, what the pending resolution tells us is 
Governmental Affairs, with this special fund which we are providing you 
to look into the 1996

[[Page S2106]]

election, you may not do what you otherwise can. You may not look into 
improper practices with this fund, although you could normally look 
into improper practices with the funds that we provide to you.
  Now, why the difference? Why are we told when it comes to look at the 
1996 election that we cannot exercise the same jurisdiction, look into 
the same type of practices, corrupt, improper practices that have an 
odor, why are we being told we cannot do that with the funds that are 
given to us specially to look into the 1996 election?
  The answer is very obvious. The answer is that there is a fear on the 
part of a majority of the majority that such an investigation will get 
into the area of soft money, which is legal--part of it we believe is 
illegal, but most of it is probably legal. And so we are being told 
that with this sum of money being given specially to look at the 1996 
election, we cannot look at what is legal in the area of soft money, 
even though it has an odor to it, even though its purpose is to evade 
the current law, even though it allows corporations to give millions of 
dollars to campaigns when the clear purpose of current law is that 
corporations not give money to candidates in elections.
  That is the purpose of the pending amendment from the Rules 
Committee. We should have no doubt about what its purpose is. It is to 
restrict the investigation so that the Governmental Affairs Committee 
cannot do with this money that is given to us to look into the 1996 
elections, cannot do what we have traditionally done with all other 
funds given to the Governmental Affairs Committee, which is to look 
into improper practices or unethical practices or practices which 
should be made illegal.
  We are told that with this funding that we are being given to look 
into the 1996 election, that we cannot do what we could do with the 
funds that were given to us under Senate Resolution 54, and which have 
traditionally been part of the jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee.
  I am going to close by reading this resolution language again because 
it is so important. Senate Resolution 54 is what gives the Governmental 
Affairs Committee its mandate. It is now the law. It is what is in 
place. It is what we are operating under in Governmental Affairs. And 
Senate Resolution 54 says, on page 16 and 17 that:

       The committee, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, 
     is authorized to * * * investigate--* * * corruption * * * 
     unethical practices * * * and any and all such improper 
     practices between Government personnel and corporations, 
     individuals, companies, or persons affiliated therewith, 
     doing business with the Government* * *.
  That authority given to us in Senate Resolution 54 to look into 
corruption and unethical practices and improper practices, we will not 
be allowed to exercise when it comes to the use of this special fund 
that is given to us for the purpose of looking into the 1996 elections.
  The argument technically is: But you don't have legislative authority 
in campaign finance reform. That is true. We don't have legislative 
authority to amend the criminal laws either, but we are allowed to look 
into illegal practices. There is utterly no logic in this.
  The argument which was used to restrict this funding to illegal 
practices was: Governmental Affairs doesn't have legislative 
authority--which is true--to legislate in the area of campaign finance 
reform. But we do not have legislative authority to legislate relative 
to illegal practices either, but we are allowed, in fact we are 
restricted, in terms of our investigation, to the area of illegal 
practices. So the logic for this restriction is not there. What is 
there, and I think a number of Members of the majority have been very 
open about this, is that they do not want us to give any momentum to 
the reform movement in the area of campaign finance. And the fear is 
there, that if the Governmental Affairs Committee investigates within 
the area of its traditional jurisdiction, improper practices, unethical 
practices, and corruption as we have in Senate Resolution 54--if we do 
that, the fear is that we will somehow or other give a boost to 
campaign finance reform. And to that I say: Amen, it is long overdue.
  And what is unprecedented, unprecedented, is the restriction of a 
fund to prevent a committee from looking into an area which it has 
traditionally looked into. That is what is unprecedented. It is 
something which the public, I believe, will totally disagree with. I 
believe this institution will regret doing it, because it sets a 
precedent for this institution which is not a wise precedent. And I do 
not think it will withstand the scrutiny, either of the public or of 
the media.
  What we are left with will be this. If this resolution passes in the 
form that it is now in from the Rules Committee, or something like it, 
we will then be limited to illegal, which I am happy to hear, at least 
in the opinion of the chairman of the Rules Committee, includes both 
civil as well as criminal illegality. And I presume we will do the best 
that we can with that. But we all ought to realize that what is off the 
table, as far as this investigation is concerned, by Governmental 
Affairs Committee--what has been removed, taken away from us, 
restricted, is the bright light of day into what is currently legal but 
which should be, at least arguably, made illegal.

  I thank the Chair and I also thank my friend from Virginia. As 
always, he has shown great courtesy in terms of attempting to respond 
to inquiries on the floor, and to helping this institution work its way 
through some very difficult issues.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. But just before he 
departs, I hope he would recognize that, while he uses the phrase 
``taken it off the table,'' it is the jurisdiction of the Rules 
Committee. And I hope that you, as a colleague, will give us the 
benefit of the doubt, that the Rules Committee will diligently--
certainly speaking for myself, and I think for many members of that 
committee, if not all--will diligently pursue the issues that are of 
great importance. I share your concern over the importance of both 
independent expenditures and soft money. The phrase ``soft money'' must 
be terribly complex to the American public. What is soft money? I guess 
we are going to get a tight definition of that at some point. But we 
will pursue it with diligence. And I hope you acknowledge that fact.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank him for that. Soft money is most of the money that 
is out there. It is the unregulated money. It is the millions.
  As it turns out, under the current definition, if I could just ask my 
good friend to yield for 1 more minute, under the current definition by 
the Attorney General and Boyden Gray--who was the counsel for President 
Bush, they both agree on this--I cannot use my phone, even a cell 
phone, at my own expense in my office, to solicit a contribution to my 
campaign for $100. I cannot do that, even using my own cell phone in my 
office. But I can use my Government phone to solicit $1 million for the 
Democratic National Committee, right from my office. That is the 
current state of the law. That is the soft money ``exception,'' which 
is really the rule, because it is most of the money which is now 
received.
  But to answer my friend's question, I was very careful saying what is 
off the table, as far as the Governmental Affairs Committee 
investigation is concerned, if this resolution is adopted in its 
current form, will be the investigation into what is currently legal in 
the area of soft money, independent expenditures. I did not comment on 
what the Rules Committee might or might not do, and that is going to be 
in the good judgment of the Rules Committee and its chairman and 
ranking member.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I hope the Senator will give us the 
benefit of the doubt that we as Senators will pursue that with equal 
vigor.
  I thank my colleague. It was a very profitable exchange.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Governmental 
Affairs Committee, I am naturally interested in this debate over Senate 
Resolution 39--a funding resolution for the Senate Governmental Affairs 
Committee special investigation, as amended by the Senate Rules 
Committee. I object to the action taken by the Rules Committee on 
Thursday that forces the Governmental Affairs Committee to limit its 
investigation solely to illegal activities related to the 1996 
elections.
  I object because the Governmental Affairs Committee had a bipartisan 
agreement on a broad scope for this fundraising investigation. However, 
in

[[Page S2107]]

an effort to appease those opposed to reforming our campaign finance 
laws, the Rules Committee overrode the agreement unanimously adopted by 
the Governmental Affairs Committee on January 30, 1997. The scope of 
the investigation is now so narrow that we are being forced to operate 
with blinders. If a fundraising activity is improper--we cannot look at 
it. If the activity occurred prior to 1996--we cannot look at it. If 
the activity involves soft money or questionable use of tax-exempt 
organizations--we cannot look at that, unless it is clearly illegal.
  The Rules Committee resolution narrows the definition of illegal so 
that the Governmental Affairs Committee would have to show evidence of 
criminal activity beyond a reasonable doubt before an activity or 
individual can be investigated. Is there anyone who does not believe 
that there are some serious allegations that are improper rather than 
illegal? How can we legislate changes in our campaign finance laws if 
we cannot look into activities that are not currently illegal, but 
should be illegal?
  Mr. President, I am proud to be a member of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee because it is one committee that continually operates in a 
bipartisan and fair manner. We hammered out the scope of our 
investigation over a period of several days and it received support 
from Democrats and Republicans alike.
  Last Friday, I participated in a press conference called by the 
ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Mr. Glenn, to 
express concern with the newly amended funding resolution that came out 
of the Rules Committee. At that news conference, I said that the 
committee had taken the high ground by unanimously agreeing to a 
resolution setting forth the scope of its investigation.
  Back on January 30, 1997, the committee agreed on a number of issues 
relating to illegal or improper fundraising and spending practices 
which would lead to a consensus of how to best consider the issues at 
hand. Regretfully, since the adoption of that agreement, there has been 
discord, insinuations, accusations, and other obstacles to resolving 
the impasse over the committee's special investigatory funding.
  I object to the revision of the scope previously agreed upon by the 
Governmental Affairs Committee because past investigations into 
allegations of misconduct examined improper and unethical conduct as 
well as illegal conduct. Moreover, if the funding resolution before us 
today is adopted, we will limit the scope of the investigation to only 
the 1996 election cycle, thereby eliminating the possibility of looking 
into the issue of soft money, issue advocacy, and possible illegal use 
of tax-exempt organizations.
  Under the amended resolution, the Governmental Affairs Committee 
investigation would be precluded from investigating allegations that 
may be embarrassing to Congress, and potential problems related to 
individual members would be referred to the Senate Ethics Committee. I 
know that most Members of Congress are honest; however, if our 
citizenry believes that money buys access, then we must look into 
allegations that point to improper use of office.
  The statement of purpose of the Governmental Affairs special 
investigation, as amended by the Rules Committee last Thursday, 
authorizes funds for ``the sole purpose of conducting an investigation 
of illegal activities in connection with 1996 Federal election 
campaigns.'' We have been told that the scope agreed to in the 
resolution before us was patterned after the Watergate resolution. 
However, the omission of two key words from that original Watergate 
resolution--unethical and improper--will undermine any investigation 
into the influence of money on Federal elections.
  Mr. President, I shall not belabor this issue as I know there are 
other Members who wish to speak. I want to reiterate, however, that the 
scope agreed to on January 30, 1997, was very inclusive--it would 
provide for an investigation into the business of fundraising by both 
parties. The purpose of our inquiry was to examine all aspects of 
campaign fundraising--both Presidential and congressional--with the 
eventual outcome to be substantive and effective campaign finance 
reform legislation. I fear that without ensuring that improper 
fundraising practices are included in the investigation that this may 
never come about. We cannot deny the public a full and thorough inquiry 
into allegations that may eventually lead to tough campaign finance 
laws.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Chair kindly advise the Senator 
from Virginia and the Senator from Ohio as to the remainder of the 
time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 10 minutes, 14 
seconds; the Senator from Ohio, 3 minutes and 17 seconds.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of S. 419 are 
located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and 
Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I offer my sincere appreciation to my 
distinguished friend, the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am happy to do it. It is a very 
important matter, and I was quite interested in what the Senator from 
Missouri had to say.
  The Senator from Virginia yields back such time as he has remaining, 
and I understand my colleague from Ohio will have further remarks, at 
the conclusion of which we will stand in recess until the reconvening 
hour of 2:15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, this debate comes down to a simple choice: 
You are in favor of campaign finance reform or you are opposed to 
campaign finance reform, and that is what the argument is all about. I 
believe both sides of the aisle want to correct things as far as 
illegalities are concerned, I don't have any question of that. But the 
other area that is so big is the area of independent expenditures, soft 
money and all the other practices that grew up and came to a peak in 
the 1996 election.
  There was no doubt that the public was demanding that we look into 
this, and there were various committees that wanted a part of that 
activity. There was the Commerce Committee, Judiciary Committee, 
Foreign Relations Committee, Rules Committee, and Governmental Affairs 
Committee. The Republican leadership decided to talk the other 
committees into not exercising their jurisdictions they normally would 
have in this area and assign that to the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, which has the broadest investigative authority on Capitol 
Hill.
  My friend, the Senator from Virginia, read into the Record a little 
while ago the Governmental Affairs Committee's jurisdiction out of 
Senate Resolution 54, which details what we are to look into with the 
money that comes out and we are given each year. It involves the whole 
gamut of anything to do with the Federal Government in any way, shape, 
or form, any type of corruption, anything we want to look into on that. 
We have exercised that jurisdiction through the years.
  It was assigned to the committee. Senator Thompson, chairman of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, and I worked out an agreement on what 
the scope of this investigation would be. We didn't have agreement on 
the money yet or some other things like that, but we at least had the 
$1.8 million we agreed to. Today, we are going up to the $4.5 million 
that was stated, but we object strongly to cutting back on our normal 
jurisdiction of what we can look into.
  Why is this being cut back? Because a few members on the Rules 
Committee that has to pass on our additional money for investigative 
activity over and above our normal committee budget dug in their heels, 
the people who are publicly outspoken against any campaign finance 
reform, and they are the ones who, on the Rules Committee, were able to 
stop that type funding, unless they got an agreement, unless a deal was 
cut.
  So a deal was cut that we would not be able to look into any of the 
things involved that we wanted to look into with regard to soft money 
and independent expenditures with regard to Capitol Hill, with regard 
to congressional campaigns, Senate or the House. They were dead set 
against that. They didn't want that looked into. The reason, I guess, 
is because Republicans

[[Page S2108]]

outdo the Democrats about 2 to 1 in this fundraising area and 
particularly in the area of soft money. It was crucial, as we see it, a 
couple of years ago in changing the majority in the Senate, because 
money is the mother's milk of politics. It is really what has more 
impact than anything else. So they objected to any changes or to any 
investigation in those areas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GLENN. I ask unanimous consent to finish my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, they wanted to cut out any investigation of 
Capitol Hill. That is the reason we came to this situation. It was not 
that most Members don't want to correct campaign finance reform on our 
side. We asked for campaign finance reform legislation to be brought to 
the floor all this year. We would like to see the McCain-Feingold 
proposal voted on.
  But regardless of that, we think that an airing of everything to do 
with what happened in campaign financing over the past several 
elections, really, as this has built up to a crescendo that just 
inundated us in 1996, we think that should be looked into to lay the 
base for real campaign finance reform and give us that kind of 
educational base.
  What happened? Those who were against this got a deal cut, and 
instead, all the things we were going to look into which was submitted 
as the original part of Senate Resolution 39 from the Governmental 
Affairs Committee to the Rules Committee for approval were all struck, 
the total language, and the additional funds in the last part of this 
that are operable in Senate Resolution 39 as brought to the floor state 
that funds can only be used for the sole purpose of conducting an 
investigation of illegal activities. That takes out all those other 
areas of soft money that we wanted to look into.
  The amendment I proposed would restore the scope of the 
investigation, as the chairman and I and as all members of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, including those who are on the Rules 
Committee, voted out of committee. They voted for these things to go 
into this type of scope. They did not disagree with it then. But as 
part of the deal that was cut then, that kind of scope was taken away 
from us. Now I would propose, with my amendment, to restore that.

  What has happened this morning is now the majority leader has 
proposed an amendment to my amendment, a second-degree amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, that would again say that ``the Committee on 
Rules and Administration, not the Committee on Governmental Affairs, 
has jurisdiction under rule 25 over all proposed legislation and other 
matters relating to--(1) Federal elections generally * * * [and] (2) 
corrupt practices * * * [and] the Committee on Governmental Affairs 
shall refer to the Committee on Rules and Administration any evidence 
of activities * * * [that] are not illegal but which may require 
investigation * * *'' In other words, this takes us back where we were. 
It second-degrees my amendment and takes us back to the intent of 
Senate Resolution 39, which cut back the authority on the committee.
  There has been a good discussion of this this morning. But to my way 
of thinking, this boils down, very, very simply, to one area. And one 
thing that is correct is, it is a choice. Do we want campaign finance 
reform or do we not?
  We want the broadest possible investigation so we can come out with 
good campaign finance reform that I think will be follow on to McCain-
Feingold if we are ever able to get it to a vote. On the other side, 
they do not want any investigation in this area and are opposed to 
campaign finance reform. That is the bottom-line choice we are talking 
about here.
  I will end with that because my good friend from Virginia has been 
very kind in granting me extra time here. I have run over several 
minutes, I know. I thank him very much.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague.
  I would have to say to my good friend and colleague, we will have 
more debate on this as the day goes on and perhaps tomorrow. Hopefully, 
we can finish tonight, but I will be ready to take the floor tomorrow 
again.
  Mr. President, he misstates the case. This Senator is for campaign 
finance reform of some measure. I am not able to give the parameters in 
totality now. The distinguished majority leader sat here and opened 
this debate this morning indicating what is taking place. He, together 
with Senator Nickles, is conducting a task force on this side of the 
aisle which meets on a regular basis to examine those provisions, 
which, hopefully, we will insert at some point in time in a bill which 
is clearly campaign finance reform. So, I have to strongly disagree 
with my good friend and colleague on that point.
  Now, Mr. President, we shall stand in recess.

                          ____________________