[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 30 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2113-S2115]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES BY THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
The Senate continued with the consideration of the resolution.
Amendment No. 23
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I see my distinguished colleague [Mr.
Glenn], is in the Chamber. So, at this time, on behalf of both leaders,
I ask unanimous consent that there be 5 minutes for debate equally
divided on amendment No. 23; following the debate, the Senate proceed
to vote on amendment No. 23 without any intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I do not object to this proposal for 5
minutes for debate equally divided on the amendment, and following
debate, we proceed to vote. There has been a lot of negotiating going
on here, as has been obvious to everyone. I think we have some
satisfactory procedures worked out that will be generally far more
acceptable than what we had prior to that. I look forward to the vote.
I think that most people on both sides will probably be happy to vote
for this because this is a way we get to a final solution out of the
disagreements we have had here. I look forward to the vote.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I congratulate my distinguished colleague,
because I doubt that we would be where we are right now had we not had
the debate yesterday and the debate this morning. I think the Senator
from Ohio would concur in that.
Mr. GLENN. I would, indeed.
Mr. WARNER. Therefore, Mr. President, I express my appreciation to
the distinguished Republican leader, the Republican whip and others who
worked on this resolution. The amendment, which was reported out from
the Rules Committee, will be amended by the distinguished majority
leader, and I will be a cosponsor, whereby we add the word
``improper.'' That reflects on the original document that I drew from,
namely the Watergate amendment which we referred to several times on
the floor. That contained that particular word, and it has been
throughout the various expressions by the Governmental Affairs
Committee as to their desire. But that does not in any way infringe on
the continuing role of the Rules Committee or the continuing role of
the Ethics Committee.
Again, there is a clear division under the underlying resolution from
the Rules Committee that these three committees will work together as a
team and, hopefully, resolve many problems relating to campaign reform
and campaign finance and otherwise. I certainly will say to my
distinguished colleague, and I see on the floor the distinguished
chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, with whom I have had a
dialog just about every day, their main focus will be on the question
of allegations of illegality and the presence, or lack thereof, of
illegality in the generic subject of campaign finance and campaign
reform.
Mr. President, unless the distinguished Senator from Ohio has further
remarks, I yield back the time and we can proceed with the vote.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I don't want to get into another debate
before we even get around to this vote, but I think the focus on where
the wrongdoing is can be either on illegalities or on improprieties
with the change that has been proposed by the leaders. I would not want
to let it be said right now or let it be indicated that the main
focus--what the main focus will be, I think, is up to the committee
chairman and the ranking minority member to work out. I think we have
language in here that will do that. It might be inappropriate at
sometime to take up an illegality if it was looked at as fairly minor,
or a giant impropriety over that, in our judgment, needed to be looked
at first. I would not agree at this point that this vote we are about
to take specifies exactly which direction we would go. I hope that my
colleague will agree with that.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time, I think all time has
expired, has it not?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds remaining. The
Senator from Ohio also has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. GLENN. I yield such time as I have to the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if we can ask directly, the
Senator, with this amendment, is not establishing any priorities
between illegality and impropriety; is that correct? Either one would
be within the scope, is that accurate?
Mr. WARNER. Very clearly we have drafted the language so that the
word ``improper'' is added to the underlying resolution of the Rules
Committee in two places.
Mr. LEVIN. And it is not given any lesser strength than the word
``illegality,'' is that correct?
Mr. WARNER. I say to the Senator, we simply added one word. It speaks
for itself.
Mr. LEVIN. Except that our good friend from Virginia suggested there
might be a greater emphasis on one than the other. Is there anything in
this----
Mr. WARNER. If I did, I did not wish to infer that. I thank my
colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 23, offered by the Senators from Mississippi,
Tennessee, and Virginia.
[[Page S2114]]
Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Before the roll is called--I withdraw my request, Mr.
President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll on amendment No.
23.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DODD (when his name was called). Present.
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 28 Leg.]
YEAS--99
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith, Bob
Smith,
Gordon H.
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Dodd
The amendment (No. 23) was agreed to.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 23, as Modified
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
No. 23 just agreed to be modified so that the word ``and'' is replaced
with the word ``or'' each time it appears.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 23), as modified, is as follows:
On page 10, line 19 after the word ``illegal'' add ``or
improper''.
On page 10, line 23 after the word ``illegal'' add ``or
improper''.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Senate's
wise decision to amend the scope provision of Senate Resolution 39, the
funding resolution for the Governmental Affairs Committee investigation
into campaign finance. I had planned to offer this afternoon an
amendment virtually identical to what the Senate has now adopted. This
amendment addresses what most deeply troubled me about that resolution:
the restriction in the version that came to the Senate floor of the
scope of the investigation that previously every member of the
Governmental Affairs Committee unanimously agreed to. Each and every
member of our committee--Republican and Democrat alike--had voted to
authorize an investigation into both illegal and improper campaign
finance activities. Unfortunately, before our funding resolution got to
the floor it had been modified in the rules committee to preclude the
Governmental Affairs Committee from exercising authority to look into
``improper'' activities, arguing that it was enough for us to look into
only ``illegal'' activities.
Mr. President, I applaud the bipartisan decision to reverse that
decision and to return the term ``improper'' to the scope of the
Governmental Affairs Committee's investigation. Without the return of
that authority, I was concerned that our committee's hopes of
conducting a thorough and bipartisan investigation would have been
dashed. We would have been forced to conduct an investigation that I
feared would have failed to expose the ills of our campaign finance
system and would have further undermined the public's confidence in the
working of our political institutions.
The continuing revelations about the state of our campaign finance
system may not only shake the American people's confidence in the
integrity of our political system, but our own confidence and self-
respect. It is therefore our obligation in Congress to conduct a
thorough investigation into the cause and scope of those problems, into
the extent of any illegal and improper activities that occurred, and
then, on the basis of those inquiries, to decide what action Congress
must take to prevent these things from ever happening again and what
activities should be illegal. For that reason, and like each and every
one of my colleagues on the Governmental Affairs Committee--Republican
and Democrat alike--I voted to conduct a broad-based inquiry into the
problems that have plagued our campaign finance system. In a unified
and strong voice, our Committee declared an intention to explore and
expose all improper activities taken during recent Federal campaigns.
If there were illegal activities taken by anyone, we declared--whether
they be in the White House, in the national parties or in the
Congress--we planned to investigate them. If there were activities
taken that some would call illegal, but because of a technicality in
the law, may not be--still, we declared, we want to investigate them.
And, if there were activities taken that clearly were not illegal, but
just as clearly were improper and so threatened to undermine the
integrity of our political system, we declared, then we must be able to
investigate those too, so that we could decide what behavior is now
legal that we want to make illegal. That is what we mean by campaign
finance reform. On January 30, 1997, I joined all of my colleagues on
the Governmental Affairs Committee--Republicans and Democrats alike--in
voting to authorize an investigation that would do all of those things.
Unfortunately, some disagreed with the Governmental Affairs
Committee's desire to expose all improprieties in our campaign finance
system, not just acts that are illegal. In what I have been told is an
unprecedented action, there was an effort to deny the Governmental
Affairs Committee this jurisdiction.
Accepting that vote and limiting the scope of the Governmental
Affairs Committee's investigation to merely ``illegal'' activities
would have limited us in investigating what most people agree is wrong
with the system; it would have damaged our ability to obtain evidence
and subpoena witnesses; and it ultimately may have led to a partisan
breakdown on the Governmental Affairs Committee over the meaning of the
term ``illegal.'' The net effect clearly would have been to make it
less likely for Congress to adopt campaign finance reform this session.
Let me give just a couple of examples of how this restricted scope
would have caused problems for the Governmental Affairs Committee
investigation. Most people seem to agree that our committee should look
into the influence of so-called foreign money. Those supporting the
limitation of our investigatory scope to illegal activities argue that
that limitation has no impact on our ability to investigate foreign
money. And, it is true that we have a statute, section 441e of title 2
of the United States Code that makes it--and I quote--``unlawful for a
foreign national * * * to make any contribution * * * in connection
with an election to any political office * * * or for any person to
solicit, accept, or receive any such contribution from a foreign
national.'' This provision has been cited for the proposition that any
and all contributions by non-U.S. citizens or greencard holders to
political parties is a criminal offense.
But as is often true with the law, not everything is as it seems.
Instead, under the election law's own definition of the term
``contribution'' and the Supreme Court's previous interpretations of
election law terms similar to ``in connection with an election,''--
provisions, I might add, that those seeking to limit our investigation
seem not to want to change--under those laws it is highly likely that
the Court would find that section 441e does not criminalize so-called
soft money contributions to national parties by foreigners. Let me say
that again: soft money donations
[[Page S2115]]
from non-U.S. citizens likely are not ``illegal.'' That is because
under the way our campaign laws now are drafted, soft money
contributions are, by definition, not made in connection with an
election, and only contributions made in connection with an election
are illegal. Instead, ``soft money'' contributions go to fund party
building and grassroots activities, as well as to help pursue issues
advocacy, and apparently no statute says that foreign money cannot go
to that. In fact, it is a similar statutory term that allows
corporations and unions to give millions of dollars to the national
parties, despite the fact that our Federal election laws make it
illegal for those entities to make contributions in connection with
elections for Federal office.
In short, under a strict reading of the statute, if foreign money
goes for issues advocacy or for grassroots activity or for practically
anything else but to fund a particular candidate's direct campaign, it
is likely not illegal, and therefore the Governmental Affairs
Committee, absent this amendment, would not have been able to
investigate it.
Now I know that some will say that I am splitting legal hairs, and I
would agree with you. It is splitting legal hairs. But, as a former
State Attorney General, I can tell you that the splitting of legal
hairs is precisely what often goes into making a determination of what
is legal and what is illegal. For as long as our Bill of Rights has
been in place, the enforcement of our laws--and particularly of our
criminal laws--has not rested on what we think a criminal statute
should have said or what we wish it did say. Instead, it rests with
what Congress actually did say, regardless of whether you or I in
hindsight wish we had said something different. And the reason for this
is a very good one. Our Constitution requires that everyone of us have
clear notice of what is and is not legal, and consequently requires us
in Congress to say in precise and clear terms what is criminal and what
is not. Whenever there is any doubt about whether a statute makes
conduct criminal or not, the Supreme Court has told us on innumerable
occasions, the law requires a finding against criminality. And I can
say with confidence that that is precisely the finding our courts would
make if asked whether foreign contributions for issues advocacy and
grassroots activities violate our laws. So again, we would not have
been able to investigate a critically important issue.
Let me give you another example of what would not have been within
our investigation's scope had we not expanded it to cover improper as
well as illegal activities. There has been a lot of criticism about
soliciting or receiving contributions in the White House. Some have
claimed that there was a violation of the criminal law based on a
statute that says that ``it shall be unlawful for any person to solicit
or receive any contribution within the meaning of section 301(8) of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 in any room or building occupied
in the discharge of official duties * * *.'' But, as Attorney General
Reno declared the other day, and for reasons similar to the ones I just
cited, that provision does not make it unlawful to receive all
contributions in the White House. Instead, it only applies to what the
campaign laws define as a contribution--what we usually call ``hard
money.''
This, of course, does not mean that it is proper for anyone to
solicit or receive any contributions in the White House. And, even more
importantly, it clearly does not mean that foreigners should be able to
contribute to the DNC or the RNC--I think that neither is proper and
that we need to fully investigate whether our elections were in any way
wrongly influenced by people who have no business being involved in our
political system. What it does, of course, mean is that we need to
reflect upon the fact that our laws don't make these things illegal and
to change our laws to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Now, none of this matters so long as the Governmental Affairs
Committee can investigate both illegal and improper activities, because
I can tell you for sure that foreign contributions--regardless of their
legality--are improper and should be investigated and exposed. But had
we not amended the Rules Committee's scope provision, we likely would
not have been able to investigate these things because they are not
illegal.
The problems with limiting our committee's scope to just illegal
activities would not have ended with being forced to exclude critical
issues from our investigation. No--there were many more problems with
this definition of our scope. For one, it would have seriously
jeopardized our committee's ability to obtain evidence and get
witnesses to testify, and it therefore would have threatened the very
ability of our committee to proceed with its investigation. After all,
our committee has authority to subpoena only those documents that are
related to the legitimate scope of its inquiry. If the scope of our
committee's investigation were limited to illegal activities alone,
then I would suggest that any attorney representing a client whose
documents have been subpoenaed would have responded by saying ``my
client did nothing illegal and therefore you have no rights to these
documents.'' Our investigation would have been stopped dead in its
tracks right there.
In sum, it would have been wrong on every level to limit our
investigation to just illegal activities. It would have prevented us
from investigating things that should be investigated, it would have
led us to prolonged battles with witnesses who otherwise would be
obliged to come forward and cooperate and it would have made it likely
that the partisan rift we have thus far been seeing on the committee
would grow wider rather than undergo the seriously needed repair we
began making today. But the worst of it could have been the harm our
institution will suffer in the minds of the public. Had we not expanded
the scope of this investigation, the U.S. Senate would have gone on
record, in full public view, opposing the investigation of unethical
and improper campaign activities of Members of Congress. If that would
not have been perceived as a stonewall and a coverup, I don't know what
would be.
Finally, let me say just a few words about one other issue: That the
Rules Committee could have separately investigated the improprieties I
wish to see exposed by our committee. With all due respect to the
members of the Rules Committee, for whom I have tremendous respect,
that simply is not a viable--or a rational--option. As the examples I
gave above demonstrate, although some of what is now under scrutiny may
be illegal, most of it probably is just improper. The task of
investigating the massive universe of improper activities is therefore
an enormous one, as is deciding what should be illegal. In light of the
facts that many of the same people will have committed both improper
and illegal activities and that much of the conduct under investigation
arguably would fall into both categories, it just would not have made
sense for the Rules Committee to conduct an investigation that will, in
many ways, duplicate what our committee will be doing. In fact, it was
this precise insight--that it did not make sense from a resource
allocation standpoint to spend taxpayer funds on duplicative
investigations--that led the majority at the beginning of this Congress
to wisely decide to consolidate all investigations in the Governmental
Affairs Committee.
Mr. President, let me just close with a few thoughts on what the goal
of this investigation should be. We're about to enter a long, dark
tunnel, and the question of whether that tunnel has a dead end, or
there is light at the other end, hinges entirely on whether we get
serious about this campaign finance investigation and about campaign
finance reform. The public didn't send us here to bicker; that's
essentially what President's Bush and Clinton had to say in their
inaugural addresses. They also didn't send us here to dicker endlessly,
especially on matters of importance to them like investigating and
straightening out our campaign finance laws. I hope that the showing of
bipartisanship we made today in agreeing to return a broader scope to
the Governmental Affairs Committee's investigation can continue through
the rest of our investigation and, I hope just as strongly, can bring
us together to enact the reforms that our campaign finance system so
sorely needs.
____________________