[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.

                          ____________________