[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 30 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2116-S2125]
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 consideration of the resolution.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, at the beginning, I thank all concerned for 
the efforts that have been put into coming to this agreement, 
especially the Democratic leader. There has been a lot of discussion 
involving Senators on both sides of the aisle and all the different 
committees involved. I think this is the right thing to do and we can 
move on, then, with the proper investigation, in a bipartisan way.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Glenn 
amendment No. 21 be withdrawn, and the committee substitute, as 
amended, be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 21) was withdrawn.
  The committee substitute, as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. I further ask unanimous consent that there be 1 hour 
equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with an 
additional 10 minutes under the control of Senator Specter--I want to 
emphasize that I presume that time will be 30 minutes on our side, 
under the control of Senator Thompson, and 30 minutes on the other 
side, under the control of Senator Glenn--and following the conclusion 
or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of 
Senate Resolution 39, as amended, without further action or debate, and 
that the vote occur at 6:30 p.m. this evening.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, let me just use this 
opportunity to thank the majority leader and all of his senior 
leadership on the committees, as well as the leadership on our side, 
Senator Glenn, Senator Levin, and certainly Senator Ford, and all of 
those responsible for bringing us to this point. This has not been 
easy. This has been a matter that has divided us for too long a period 
of time.
  For us now to be able to come together on this matter, I think, is a 
good omen. I am very appreciative of the contribution made by so many 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I hope that with unanimity 
we can support this request this afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Let me add, Mr. President, I had intended to offer an 
amendment this afternoon to the resolution calling for the appointment 
of an independent counsel. However, I had agreed earlier with the 
Democratic leader to withhold that until at least this Thursday to 
allow the Judiciary Committee to discuss the issue of appointment of 
independent counsel and see if there is some way that a bipartisan 
agreement could be reached there, also.
  In view of that commitment that I believe we basically entered into a 
week ago, I felt it was important that I keep that commitment, and 
therefore we will withhold action until we see what comes out of the 
Judiciary Committee on the independent counsel issue.
  Mr. DASCHLE. If I could, Mr. President, indicate that we had intended 
to offer an amendment dealing with a date certain for taking up 
campaign finance reform, and obviously because we have made so much 
progress on this issue and because the majority leader has indicated 
his desire to work with us on the issue of an independent counsel, as 
well, we will defer that until another time and another circumstance. 
We are not intending at this point to offer legislation which would 
direct the Senate in that regard.
  I appreciate, again, the cooperation and consensus that we have been 
able to work out on both sides on both these matters.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I think that we have made substantial 
progress. In fact, I think remarkable progress. I cannot express the 
extent of my delight in the cooperation we have seen here in the last 
few hours in the U.S. Senate.
  The minority leader is absolutely correct in that we have tended to 
get off track and we have done a little too much disagreeing and not 
enough coming together. What we have done now is, really, I think for 
the first time, focused on some of these issues. I think that many of 
our Members have not had the opportunity to really focus on the legal 
and procedural issues and what some of these things will mean to us as 
we go down the road in trying to conduct an investigation. I think 
Members on both sides, when you come right down to it, and they stop 
and think about it and focus on these issues, really have a whole lot 
more in agreement than in disagreement.
  I think we all want to see this investigation done in a fair manner, 
in a thorough manner, and as expeditiously as possible. That is what we 
tried to set out in January when I took the floor and tried to set out 
what I thought should be the scope of the investigation and where I 
thought we

[[Page S2117]]

were going and how we were going to do it. We have not always, every 
day, been able to adhere to that.
  Today, I think that we really are back on track again. I want to 
compliment the majority leader. There have been strong feelings on all 
sides of these issues, a lot of misunderstandings, and a lack of focus 
in terms of really what was involved and at stake here. He has brought 
us all together, I think, and required us to do that, along with the 
minority leader. The two of them working together, with Senator Glenn 
and others, has resulted in something that I think is very, very good 
today.
  The Governmental Affairs Committee, on the scope issue, came with 
what we felt was a good, broad scope of things we should look at. The 
Rules Committee came back with what many felt was too narrow a scope. 
And now we are somewhere in the middle of that, with the ability to 
look at not only illegal activities, but improper activities. That is 
where we ought to be, there is no question about that. It's not that we 
gain so much by having it in our mandate, it is what we lose if we 
don't have it in our mandate. We could not be in a position of not 
looking at improper activities, and Members on both sides came to that 
conclusion once they focused in on it.
  We have had a good debate. I watched most of the debate yesterday 
that we had. Members were heard on both sides. Many of the Republican 
Members pointed out the serious accusations and reports that are out 
there--some of the most grievous things that this country has seen, if 
they prove to be true, having to do with foreign influence in our 
country and what they were trying to obtain with regard to foreign 
contributions and things of that nature. Of course, they were right in 
that. Other Members, from the Democratic side, pointed out the fact 
that we needed to make sure that our scope was not so narrow as to look 
like we were either trying to protect ourselves or trying to keep from 
looking at things that might prove embarrassing to one side or another. 
They were correct, also. What today represents is a coming together of 
both of those approaches that we saw in the debate yesterday.
  The scope we have now of looking at illegal and improper activities 
is in the tradition of the Governmental Affairs Committee. As Senator 
Glenn pointed out yesterday, this is the McClellan committee, the 
Kefauver committee, the Truman committee; this is the primary 
investigative committee of this body. So, therefore, it's certainly now 
more in the traditional range of what the jurisdiction and scope of 
Governmental Affairs' activity has been in times past. Does it mean 
that we have solved all of our problems? Certainly not.
  We are going to have to be judges. The committee is going to have to 
make determinations right along as to what is illegal or improper 
allegations that might lead to illegalities, or might lead to evidence 
of improprieties, or what is the threshold. Is there a credible report, 
or is there credible evidence that there might be illegalities? Or are 
they illegalities or improprieties? Those are things that people, in 
good faith, can have different views of. I am convinced that we, as a 
committee, as we consider these matters, will come to the right 
conclusion. Whether it is merely illegalities, as the jurisdiction was 
before this compromise, or whether its illegalities and improprieties, 
as it is now, we are in the same position that we were in and Senator 
Inouye was in during the Watergate investigation. Determinations had to 
be made at that time as to what was allegedly illegal or improper. So 
we are really in no different position, in terms of that, than we have 
been in in times past. It will not always be pleasant for the members 
of the committee to have to make these determinations. But that is a 
part of our job, and we can do that job.
  I think now, with this broader scope, it makes it more clear in some 
areas that things can be appropriately looked at and looked into, which 
perhaps were murky before we reached this agreement. I do not think 
that it is wise for me or anyone else to prejudge an individual, or an 
activity, or anything of that nature before you know what the facts 
are. But I think it's fair to say that some of these activities that we 
have heard about are more clear now in terms of whether or not we have 
the jurisdiction to look at them. Some of them are still not clear.
  We will just have to sit down again, in good faith, and work out with 
each other what activities merit our attention, what activities merit 
our investigation. I should say that not everyone who receives a 
subpoena, for example, or not everyone who is asked to appear as a 
witness is being accused of an illegality or an impropriety. Sometimes 
people have evidence of illegalities or improprieties, or information 
that could be helpful, and they themselves have no problems at all. So 
that issue has been raised in some form, and I think we need to put 
people's minds at ease about that.
  I think it is also clear that--as I have said many times before--we 
will have to set priorities. I do not think we ought to say that 
anything in terms of illegal or improper is off the table. It is all 
there for us to look at. You can have what some people might refer to 
as a minor illegality or technicality on a very serious impropriety, 
and you would have to take that into consideration. But I think it is 
fair to say that we should look at the more serious matters first.

  What are the more serious matters? We will have to make those 
determinations. In my own estimation, certainly matters that have to do 
with national security, matters that have to do with the security of 
this country, clearly illegal matters that we would not have any good-
faith disagreement on, matters that are clearly illegal, matters of 
that category would certainly have to be at the top of the list, not 
only because of obvious reasons, but because of very practical reasons, 
and that is that people in a clearly criminal category tend to be the 
ones who leave the country, the ones who make determinations to take 
the fifth amendment, the ones to get together with other people in that 
category and reach agreements of silence, and things of that nature. 
They tend to be the ones to destroy documents that might incriminate 
them. We have had some evidence of that. It has been in the public 
domain. So by their very nature they have to be ranked pretty high.
  So we will have to constantly prioritize. That does not mean we have 
to wait months and months to get into some matters that do not fit into 
that category I have just mentioned. It just means we operate in good 
faith, with common sense, prioritize, keep our eyes on the ball, make 
sure that we as Republicans are mindful that procedural safeguards have 
to be instituted. It is important not only that we be fair, but that we 
perceive to be fair, as we proceed.
  It's important that the Democrats understand that we in the majority 
always have the responsibility of carrying the ball forward and pushing 
it forward and getting into these serious matters that affect all of us 
as citizens, whether we are Democrats or Republicans. There is no 
reason we can't do that, Mr. President.
  I think this is an opportunity here to start a new day. I know that 
in the little battles we have had back and forth here on these issues, 
some procedural issues and subpoenas, and so forth, that if I had 
decisions to make over again, I would make them in a different way than 
I have in times past. I have tried to adhere to what I said from the 
first day, and that is to walk that tightrope between toughness and 
thoroughness on the one hand, and fairness and bipartisanship on the 
other. That is not always an easy tightrope to walk. I haven't always 
walked it as well as I would liked to have walked it, but I am 
committed to starting forward from today and making sure that we get 
back on track.
  The Watergate committee was mentioned several times in the last 
couple days, and I was just thinking about the fact that the Watergate 
committee, I believe, was created by a vote of this body 99 to nothing, 
the creation of the committee. I do not believe, in its entire 
existence, and it was about a year and a half--I am not sure what the 
official time was, but it took about a year and a half for the report 
to be filed--that there was ever any battle over jurisdiction; there 
was never any partisan fight over money; there was never any fight over 
scope; and there was never any fight over duration because they worked 
together through those tough problems.

[[Page S2118]]

  There is no reason why we cannot do that either. There is no reason 
why we cannot do the same thing either, because at the end of the day, 
if we have conducted ourselves well, gone through these tough times, 
had our disagreements--and we will have our disagreements, but if we 
have done it in a fair way and everybody has tried to do their best and 
is willing to go forward with an investigation that a lot of people are 
not going to like, at the end of the day these procedural matters and 
these fights that we have, skirmishes that we have had are not going to 
mean very much. Where we come out on these things that we are resolving 
today is not going to mean very much if we do the right thing and have 
a good investigation, a good set of hearings promptly and make a report 
back to the American people as to what we found.
  So, again, I want to commend the majority leader especially and also 
the minority leader, Senator Glenn, and others who have worked this 
scope problem out. I think we can go forward now. That has been my 
primary concern here for the last several days. There were some times 
there when I wondered if it was going to go forward. But I believe that 
our better selves were shown today, and we refocused on this matter. 
And hopefully now we are back on the right road.
  I understand that my colleagues will have some questions concerning 
my own views on some of what we have done, and I stand ready to respond 
to any questions my colleagues might have.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I welcome the remarks by Senator Thompson. 
I think his statement is excellent. I think it does provide a new basis 
for starting ahead with these investigations, a better basis than where 
we were before, I am sure he would agree. It is a new day, and we can 
make a fresh start. We can set priorities, and those priorities can be 
set as a matter of judgment between us on not only just what is 
illegal, you would have something that is barely illegal but some giant 
thing that is improper that we now can look at on a priority basis, and 
we can make those judgments. And that is fine. I agree with that.
  I think what we have called scope, or whether you want to call it 
jurisdiction, we are on a much better basis than we were before, and I 
think we are now prepared to move ahead. I will have some other remarks 
in the colloquy that is to be provided in this half hour. I know that 
Senator Dorgan had a couple of particular things he wanted to mention. 
He has another commitment. And I ask if he might be able to do that 
now. How much time?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might just ask the Senator from Ohio 
to yield for a question that I could then perhaps direct to the Senator 
from Tennessee as well.
  Mr. GLENN. Go ahead and address your questions. Five minutes?
  Mr. DORGAN. That would be sufficient.
  Mr. GLENN. Fine.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my question was on the procedure with 
respect to subpoenas. I listened to the Senator from Tennessee--I have 
great respect for the Senator from Tennessee --and the discussions on 
the work of this committee dealing with very serious questions and 
sensitive issues. I trust that that work will be carried out in a way 
that will make the American people confident and proud that Congress 
did its job.
  On the question of subpoenas, the question that I was wanting to ask 
was about procedure. The select committee on the Watergate issue, for 
example, had a procedure which seems to me to make a lot of sense. And 
the procedure was, if the chairman or the vice chairman of a committee 
were proposing a subpoena, for example, a vice chairman of that 
committee, the procedure was if that vice chairman proposed a subpoena 
that the chair might have objected to, the vice chair had a right to go 
to the committee to get a vote of the committee on that subpoena 
question.
  It seems to me to be the right kind of procedure in order to protect 
both the chairman and also the ranking member of a committee like this, 
especially with respect to the subpoena power. And I was wanting to 
understand whether there has been any agreement on that kind of 
procedure as between the chairman of the committee and the ranking 
member.

  Mr. THOMPSON. There has been no agreement with regard to that, but I 
think that is a sound procedure. I have not revisited that in several 
years, as you might imagine. I do recall now that the Senator mentions 
it that that was the procedure during the Watergate committee hearings, 
and that gives the minority an opportunity to make their views known to 
the majority that they might not otherwise have. I tend to view that 
favorably. I would bring that to the attention of the committee, I say 
to the Senator. For myself, I would tend to view that favorably.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might, I had noticed an amendment 
that I would have intended to offer on this. The unanimous consent 
precludes me from doing that. I accepted that judgment on the basis of 
the discussion I had had previously with Senator Levin, Senator Glenn, 
Senator Thompson, and others.
  I am heartened by the Senator's answer. My expectation would be then 
that when you have had an opportunity to present this to the committee, 
the committee would probably want to adopt this procedure.
  This procedure seems to me to be sound and fair and the right kind of 
approach to deal with these very difficult issues. And certainly 
subpoena powers represent one of the most difficult issues.
  Mr. THOMPSON. It does. It has already proven to be a delicate 
situation. We got off on a bit of a wrong foot with regard to 
subpoenas. I take my share of blame for that. I do not think Senator 
Glenn was fully aware of all of the work that went into preparing our 
first subpoena list. But on the other hand, I did nothing personally to 
make him aware of that. I was depending on a lot of staff work. But 
what happened was that we came forth with several subpoenas that some 
people categorized as Republican subpoenas on Democrats and only a 
couple of Democrat subpoenas on Republicans.
  I did not look at it that way. They were subpoenas which basically 
ultimately Senator Glenn, I do not think, really had any problem with. 
I thought they were more or less basic documents that we could get into 
business with.
  But it is a delicate matter. It is a very powerful tool and can be a 
powerful weapon in the wrong hands. I appreciate that. We need to make 
sure that we work a little closer together as we prepare these subpoena 
lists because there is nothing--if you want to divide up into sides--
there is nothing that one side cannot do to the other side. You might 
not have the ultimate authority to get the subpoenas out, but you can 
obstruct and do other things that Senator Glenn knows better than 
anybody, the tools that a minority has to protect them. I know them, 
too. But we do not want to get bogged down into that. We want to try to 
get on past that, and I think we can. I think the Senator's suggestion 
has a lot of merit to it.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me point out that my suggestion and my 
inclination to offer an amendment was not prejudging whether one might 
or might not have misused subpoena power at all. It seemed to me this 
represented a procedure that made a great deal of sense. My 
understanding is that the Senator will be presenting this and let the 
committee make a judgment on it, and I am confident that the committee 
would reach the right conclusion.
  I, again, appreciate the answer of the Senator from Tennessee and the 
Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, the colloquy we had proposed earlier, I, in my part of 
this, can be rather brief, and I would allot myself such time as I may 
require. I feel very certain that the distinguished Senator from 
Tennessee, my chairman, will agree with this. But let me just put this 
forward as a colloquy so we can help clarify some of the understanding 
that has gone into this today.

  With the addition of the term ``improper,'' to expand the scope of 
the investigation to be conducted by our committee, the Governmental 
Affairs Committee, it is my understanding that the committee's 
jurisdiction to investigate now includes activities which

[[Page S2119]]

are improper, even though they may not be in violation of any law or 
regulation. The term ``improper'' means not conforming to appropriate 
standards, and that is a broad term. I believe that the scope of the 
committee's investigation would cover--and this is the important part 
here--would cover the areas set forth in the prior unanimously approved 
scope of the committee's investigation that was voted out unanimously 
by the committee.
  I would also assume that allegations of illegality or impropriety by 
a reputable source, such as the sources previously used by the 
committee to issue the subpoenas, shall be sufficient for us to 
initiate investigative action if necessary.
  Would that be basically the Senator's understanding of what we have 
done here today?
  Mr. THOMPSON. As I look over the original scope that the Senator 
referred to that came out of the Governmental Affairs Committee, a few 
things jump out at me that I think clearly come within our 
jurisdiction, or in the scope as we now have it. Foreign contributions 
are clearly illegal, not only improper; conflicts of interest resulting 
in misuse of Government offices, failure by Federal Government 
employees to maintain or observe legal barriers between fundraising and 
official business, certainly are within the scope of illegal or 
improper.
  I think there are others here that fit that category. Frankly, I 
think there are some other categories where it is not so clear. We are 
dealing with categories of activities here. It is very difficult for me 
to, with great precision, say what category in any given set of 
circumstances might or might not fall within our scope. Many times the 
answer depends upon the facts of the case. You might have a certain 
activity that may or may not be improper, depending on facts that we do 
not know yet.
  So, while, in summary, and in answer to the Senator's question, I 
think that certainly there is a good deal here of the delineation of 
the scope that came out of Governmental Affairs that certainly is 
picked up by this expanded scope that we have here today, but I would 
not want to pass judgment on, as one individual member of the committee 
when the committee itself will have to make the determinations on 
individual situations--I would not, as one member, want to pass 
judgment on any particular activity or group of people or anything like 
that, without knowing more about the facts.
  Mr. GLENN. I understand that. I appreciate that answer. I guess a 
different way to state it would be: Are there any parts of that 
original proposal that the chairman would specifically rule out as for 
any consideration under impropriety?
  Mr. THOMPSON. You are asking me to be pretty specific. Again, we are 
talking about categories of activities and situations that depend on 
the facts. I will say that the prelude to the specific areas that we 
are talking about now, foreign contributions, misuse of Government 
offices, et cetera, says that we should look into illegal or improper 
activities or practices in the 1996 campaigns, ``including but not 
limited to * * * .'' So I think the original scope kind of speaks for 
itself there. There is a further delineation, but it still has to be 
improper or illegal.
  You have to understand, now, I am just one member talking, as far as 
my own views are concerned on this. But I would assume that there would 
still be, for example, some soft money activity that would not either 
be illegal or improper. If the rules and regulations permit it, it was 
done in a correct way, there was no collusion involved, it was not done 
from a Federal building--which of course in and of itself is 
problematic, depending upon your legal interpretation. If someone gave 
a $20,000 soft money contribution, I am not prepared, today, to say 
that that is improper.
  These are the kinds of things that the committee will have to decide. 
I can assure you that we will have an opportunity for full discussion 
on any area the Senator brings up.
  Mr. GLENN. OK. I will certainly accept that answer now. I think the 
indication of what has happened here today with regard to the 
compromise in this particular area and on this bill is something that I 
think, with all the discussion, both on the floor here and privately 
with the different groups that have met today, shows we have made a lot 
of progress. It is our view that I am not going to try and pin the 
Senator down on every single one of these points and go through them 
one by one. I don't think that is necessary. I think what he has 
indicated is in general we are going to look into these things where 
there is impropriety involved, in addition to illegality, and we will 
make judgments on what is most important.
  We have broadened the scope tremendously from what it was before and 
it certainly fits more into the line of what was unanimously approved 
as the scope by the Governmental Affairs Committee by a unanimous vote. 
That has been the trend of this today, and I think this gives us a 
whole new broadened level of investigation and one that we welcome, 
because I think it will lay a better base for campaign finance reform 
over the long term. That is going to be very good, something that 
people of this country certainly need. I think, had this been just 
restricted just to straight violations of law, to illegalities, we 
would not have had that kind of scope.
  I know, with the time limits we have here today, I would like to move 
on. I certainly accept the Senator's view of these things as he has 
expressed them. I know Senator Levin had some concerns he was going to 
express about the processes, and have a colloquy in that particular 
area to try and delineate some of these things a little better and I 
yield him such time as he may require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that we have been able to 
make significant progress this afternoon on this resolution. Adding 
back the term ``improper'' has brought this investigation, basically, 
back to where members of the Governmental Affairs Committee unanimously 
intended it to be. We returned to a broader investigation: both ends of 
Pennsylvania Avenue, both parties. It is only through this kind of a 
bipartisan investigation will this investigation, indeed, bear fruit. 
It is a positive conclusion to what was turning out to be an 
unfortunate development in the history of the Senate in its power to 
investigate.
  On the other hand, on the procedures questions, I was going to offer 
an amendment to attempt to establish procedures for how we conduct this 
investigation on a bipartisan basis. Based on the progress that we made 
in restoring the breadth of the investigation, and based on private 
conversations that we have had with Senator Thompson and Senators 
Glenn, Daschle, Lott and others, I became sufficiently optimistic about 
the conduct of this investigation that I was able to waive my right to 
offer an amendment as others have waived their rights to offer 
amendments relative to this resolution.
  I have looked at 10 prior resolutions, which initiated major 
congressional investigations, and in all 10 cases, bipartisan 
procedures were adopted either in the resolution creating the 
investigation or by the committee shortly thereafter. So I would like 
to engage the chairman of the committee, the distinguished chairman, in 
a colloquy and ask a few questions about procedures. One of them is a 
general question.
  I am wondering whether or not my friend, the chairman, would agree 
that one of the first orders of business for the committee following 
approval of this resolution would be to attempt to establish 
procedures, bipartisan procedures, for the conduct of the 
investigation?
  Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, I would agree with that.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is it the chairman's hope and intention that the 
committee's depositions be conducted jointly?
  Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. I think that without any question it is important 
that we attempt to have joint participation in the depositions. I think 
that whichever side notices the deposition, there should be a certain 
period of time when the other side is notified and given the 
opportunity to attend the deposition. There might be instances where 
that's impossible, in terms of someone participating, but the notice 
should always go. The notice should always be there.
  And we need to have a firm procedure as to who has notices given, so 
there is

[[Page S2120]]

no question about the fact that notice has been given. And we need to 
exercise a little good faith and leeway. If the time that is agreed 
upon is not fully needed, for example, the side not taking the 
deposition should not insist on it. If a little more time is needed for 
scheduling purposes, the side scheduling the deposition should be 
reasonable there. But I think it is very important, to maintain the 
credibility of what we are doing, that if at all possible we have both 
sides at the depositions unless there is an agreement that it is not 
significant enough a deposition for both sides to be there. So, those 
are the goals that I would work toward.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the chairman for that. Is it also the chairman's 
hope, or intention, that, where feasible, and I emphasize the words, 
``where feasible,'' investigative interviews be conducted--I ask this 
question knowing that there will be occasions when it is impossible to 
notify the other side of a telephone conversation or some other 
conversation--but that there would be a good-faith effort, where 
feasible, to have investigative interviews be conducted jointly?
  Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. I think we need to use our best efforts to ensure 
that by providing reasonable notice under those circumstances, at least 
of all significant interviews. As you say, as these things go, there 
are going to be people scattered out in various places, and I think on 
many occasions they can go in teams. I think that will be good. But 
many times they are not going to be able to do that.
  As the Senator knows, we have been talking about procedures a lot 
here for the last couple of months. Now we have to get down to the 
heavy lifting. We have people to interview all across this country and 
people in other parts of the world. We are not going to always be able 
to do it side by side. But best efforts should be made to provide 
reasonable notice for all significant interviews, whether taken by the 
majority or the minority, so that the other side will have the 
opportunity to be there.
  I think the other important part of that is that regardless of 
whether or not there is participation or presence, that there is access 
to the information that comes from that interview. Although the 
opportunity to question might be lost if the person is not present, 
they still should have access to that information. That should be a 
part of the agreement also.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the chairman for that, and that was, indeed, my 
next question relative to access to information, documents, and, 
through a number of discussions, I think it is safe for me to say it is 
the chairman's intention that both the majority and minority would have 
equal and contemporaneous access to all documents and be given adequate 
notice of the filing of those documents?
  Mr. THOMPSON. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. The chairman, in his conversation with Senator Dorgan, 
addressed one very important issue and did so in a way which was very 
reassuring to the minority, and that was relative to the calling of a 
committee meeting relative to a request to issue a subpoena on the part 
of the minority in the event that the committee chair does not think 
that subpoena should issue, and I will not go further into that subject 
other than to say I welcome the chairman's assurance on that.
  Finally, on a related subject, we have had some problem relative to 
subpoenas because we haven't had the sufficient consultation in advance 
of a decision to issue them and the presentation of those subpoenas to 
the minority. I think the chairman has addressed this issue, too, in a 
way which is satisfactory when he said, I believe, a few moments ago 
that he looks forward to a process where we would work together 
preparing a subpoena list. I assume from that comment that that would 
be in advance of the formal presentation of subpoenas, which trigger 
that 72-hour rule. I think when that is done, we are going to find 
ourselves agreeing on a lot more of these subpoenas than would 
otherwise be the case.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I think the Senator is probably right. But let's talk 
about what we are really concerned about here. I think the Senator is 
wanting to be included in the front end of the consideration, 
basically. I think that is reasonable. It is not required by the rules. 
None of this is required by the rules of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee. This is my attempt to go beyond the rules in order to do 
something that I think is right and the fair thing to do.
  Let me not mislead you here. I think these are things that I always 
felt were best worked out at the staff level, but I think we are going 
to have to address them now. I do not think it is ever practical to 
have Senators sit down around the table for the very first conversation 
about who we are going to subpoena. I think we have to let the staff do 
their work. They have to come to us individually and as a group. They 
have to come to me as chairman and Senator Glenn with their ideas. 
There has to be opportunity to have free discussion back and forth, and 
if somebody writes a list of names or companies down that they feel 
should have top priority, they should not have to be apologetic about 
that. It has to start somewhere.
  So we need to let the staff do their work, then we need to have the 
staff submit that to the members, and then the members need to talk to 
each other. That is my idea of proceeding.
  Now, if you want to do it otherwise, if you really think that it is 
good for us to involve ourselves that much on the front end, I will 
consider something else. But I think you want to consider that very, 
very carefully, because I don't think that is the highest and best use 
of our time.
  Prior to now, in the 54 subpoenas that were issued, I believe, if 
Senators will check, they will find that the staff did work together. 
There was considerable time; there was a requirement to give 72-hour 
notice. We gave more than that, all on the staff level. But there was 
lots of discussion. Whether or not somebody came up with a list before 
they started talking or they made the list in the presence of each 
other, I don't really care, and I don't think we should care.

  But what happened was, I think where we broke down was, I didn't call 
Senator Glenn and tell him, basically, what was going on at the staff 
level, and I think that was a mistake on my part.
  So I hear what you are saying. You want to be included on the front 
end of the discussion. But we are going to get into some busy activity 
around here. We all are going to be challenged tremendously, not only 
with regard to this investigation, but with regard to our regular 
business. It is going to be fast and furious for a long time, and I 
don't want to be accused anymore of being unfair to anybody.
  So I want to lay it on the table on the front end. If you want more 
than I think right now is reasonable, I will be willing to discuss 
that. What I think is reasonable is to let the staff do their job, then 
report to the members, then the members sit down. The crucial part is 
not what is written down on a piece of paper; the crucial part is what 
comes out the other end.
  The rules require 72-hour notice. We will try our best to have 
consultation over and above what the rules require. I don't see any 
reason why we can't learn from past experience and be able to have a 
procedure where both sides are satisfied on the subpoena issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I think the chairman is correct when he says we shouldn't 
be involved in the front end of every subpoena discussion. I couldn't 
agree with you more on that issue. But my question was whether or not, 
prior to a presentation of a decision to the ranking member, it would 
be agreeable that there be some kind of a working-together, informal 
discussion.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I will strive toward that end. I think that is what I 
should have done last time and didn't. Although it is not required, it 
is something I should have done in retrospect, because I think it sent 
a signal that I didn't mean to send. There are going to be times when I 
may not be able to do that, but I will make my best efforts along those 
lines.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am sorry, the Chair apparently indicated my time has 
expired. I wonder if the Senator from Ohio will yield 1 additional 
minute to me. Apparently, we are under controlled time. I just need 1 
additional minute, basically, to thank the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

[[Page S2121]]

  Mr. LEVIN. This discussion relative to procedures is helpful. It is 
something that we worked on this afternoon as part of this unanimous-
consent agreement, and I think it can help put us back on track.
  It is something with today's action that I think we not only have 
basically adopted the committee's original scope and resolved the 
funding issue and an end date, but we also, I think, made some progress 
in terms of taking the next step toward adopting some bipartisan 
procedures. All of that is going to help this committee have a thorough 
bipartisan investigation which covers, again, both ends of Pennsylvania 
Avenue, both parties, soft money and independent expenditures and 
illegalities and whatever else the committee in its good conscience 
feels is appropriate for investigation because it is either improper or 
illegal. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, may I ask how much time is remaining on 
each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 5 minutes on your side and 15 
minutes on the other side.
  Mr. GLENN. How much for the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes on the other side.
  Mr. GLENN. I will yield to Senator Lieberman. But let me add, Senator 
Lieberman and Senator Levin have worked and worked on this particular 
situation. I certainly appreciate their efforts, as all the 
Governmental Affairs Committee members have on the Democratic side, and 
I appreciate all their efforts.
  I yield some time to Senator Lieberman.
  How much time do you need?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Four minutes.
  Mr. GLENN. Four minutes. We have 5 left. That is fair enough.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Perhaps, in the spirit of bipartisanship that is on 
the floor now, if I use the remaining 4 minutes of Senator Glenn's 
time, I may turn to Senator Thompson and ask him to yield a few.
  Mr. President, I want to thank everyone involved in what occurred 
here today. This is an extraordinarily significant accomplishment, not 
only on its face but in what it says about the willingness of the U.S. 
Senate to deal directly with the problem of too much money in American 
politics to deign to do something about it.
  This is a significant victory which is attributable in large measure 
to the leadership of the Senate, the majority leader, Democratic 
leader, and the leadership of the committee, the Senator from 
Tennessee, the chairman, and the Senator from Ohio. But it is, in 
truth, as has been said on other occasions, not a victory for any 
person or any party, it is truly a victory for the public interest.
  Mr. President, over the last couple of weeks there was a strange and 
troubling discontinuity between the growing avalanche of revelations 
about the impact of money on American politics and the impression it 
gives that American democracy is for sale, on the one hand, and the 
seeming movement here in the Senate, particularly in the vote in the 
Rules Committee last week. I am not saying this was the intention, but 
it certainly gave the impression of going into a kind of bunker of not 
being willing to have a full and open investigation of the problem of 
the way in which campaigns are financed in this country. By limiting 
the jurisdiction of the investigation to be performed by the 
Governmental Affairs Committee to illegal activities in association 
with the 1996 Federal elections, the impact would have been effectively 
to have crippled the investigation, in my opinion.
  Who would have decided what was illegal? Could not anyone subpoenaed 
by the committee have claimed that their client had not done anything 
illegal, and therefore the subpoena was improper?
  Of course, the basic purpose here, if we are serious about campaign 
finance reform, should be to investigate and reveal and inform, as the 
chairman of the committee said in one of his opening statements in this 
investigation, to inform the public about what is legal today but ought 
to be illegal, what is improper or unclear but ought to be illegal. 
That is what campaign finance reform is all about, taking some of the 
vagaries of the current system, some things that are not vague but are 
clearly improper, not illegal, and making them illegal.
  And as disappointing as the vote of the Rules Committee was last 
Thursday, I believe the vote of the Senate today, bipartisan as it is, 
is heartening. Reason has prevailed. I think Members of the Senate on 
both sides of the aisle focused in on the impact of this constricting 
jurisdiction for the investigative committee and decided it was not 
right. And that resulted in the addition of these simple two words, 
``or improper.'' But there is a world of difference in those.
  A significant step forward has been taken today on the road to 
campaign finance reform. What is most important is that we have done it 
together, Republicans and Democrats, acting not as Republicans and 
Democrats, but as Americans facing a very serious challenge to our 
democracy.
  Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask the Senator from Tennessee if 
he would yield me 2 minutes of his time?
  Mr. THOMPSON. I would be happy to yield that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. President, this is serious business. There are some people, I 
think, who rightly say the American people do not really care about all 
this campaign finance trouble, maybe because they are numb to these 
kinds of revelations. Some say maybe, ``Oh, they all think it goes on 
anyways, so what's the difference. Everybody does it.''
  I do not know whether the American people are listening or watching. 
I believe they really are. But I know that history is watching. And I 
know that we will be judged as to how we respond to this fundamental 
challenge to our democracy: the basic premise of equal access to 
Government, the basic premise of a Government in which one person has 
one vote and one person who may have a lot of money to put in politics 
does not have any more influence than that one person with one vote.
  But when people can walk in and give hundreds of thousands of 
dollars, and money moves from committees to committees, when people in 
politics, as we know because we are there, have to spend as much time 
as they do and feel the relentless pressure that they do to meet the 
competition, to raise the money to pay for the advertisements, then the 
standards of each one of us are tested and the standards of the system 
are challenged.
  A lot has been made in this debate and in the media about allegations 
that foreign countries or interests may have attempted to purchase 
influence, used campaign contributions. Mr. President, I will tell you 
that that is despicable behavior. But what we have to say to our 
ourselves is, they have done so because they believe, apparently, if 
these allegations are right, that American democracy is for sale. None 
of us want to leave that impression. And the way to correct it is by 
reforming our campaign finance laws. The way to begin that process is 
to do the kind of full and open investigation that the Senate, by this 
amendment, will now authorize. I have great confidence in the chairman 
of the committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I have great confidence in our ranking Democrat. And I 
believe together we are going to go forward to cleanse and elevate the 
way campaigns are financed in America and to reestablish and rebuild 
the basic core of our Democratic system.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank the chairman of the committee and the 
ranking Democrat. I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his usual eloquent remarks. 
I think I agree with everything that he said. I am one of those who 
have thought for a long time that we needed to make some significant 
changes in our campaign finance reform system. And I still believe that 
way stronger today than ever before.

[[Page S2122]]

  But I want to leave one thought, not in response to what the Senator 
said, but from watching the talk shows and some of the comments that 
some of the people at the White House have made, and so forth, about 
this. When talking about the issue of the need for campaign finance 
reform, my remarks on the floor on January 28 were referred to earlier. 
Something rang home with me, so I got them. And here is one of the 
things I said then. I said:

       But those of us with responsibility in this area, whether 
     it be the President or Members of Congress, cannot let the 
     call for campaign finance reform serve to gloss over serious 
     violations of existing law. If we do that, the reform debate 
     will be cast in a totally partisan context and ensure that 
     once again campaign finance reform will be killed.

  So it occurred to me that once again we must be reminded of the fact 
that those of us who want campaign finance reform must remember that 
the best thing we can do for campaign finance reform is to continue to 
talk about it if we want to, but also make sure we do a good set of 
tough bipartisan hearings that the American people have some confidence 
in.
  For those who want campaign finance reform, let us get about the 
money laundering, the foreign contributions, the allegations of selling 
public policy, allegations of violations of the Hatch Act, the Ethics 
Act, and the serious matters, that will do more for campaign finance 
reform than anything else.

  I thank the President and yield back the balance of the 2 minutes I 
was referring to.
  How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 10 minutes 
of his own right and the Senator from Tennessee continues to have 10 
minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON. The Senator is welcome to use either 10.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Tennessee for allowing me some of his time, as well as the 10 minutes. 
I will try to be relatively brief to move the process along.
  Mr. President, this has been a good showing by the U.S. Senate today 
as we have come together on a bipartisan basis, Republicans and 
Democrats, trying to structure an inquiry and hearings which will help 
reform the American campaign system where virtually everyone agrees 
there is too much money in it, and it is a very troublesome factor.
  The vote was 99-0, with one abstention, to broaden the scope of this 
investigation to include improper as well as illegal activities. I 
think we have achieved a very significant broadening of the committee's 
charge. It really is very close to what the committee did initially on 
a unanimous vote, nine Republicans and seven Democrats, saying we would 
investigate both illegal and improper activities. It was narrowed by 
the Rules Committee, and now it has been broadened again, and for very 
important reasons.
  One reason is that we may expect everything our committee does to be 
subjected to the most microscopic minute examination and legal 
challenge. Already, there have been two challenges by those under 
subpoena on subpoenas already issued by the committee. If we had a 
charter which allowed us to look only at illegal activities, it might 
well be held by a court someday that such an investigation was beyond 
the scope of what the Congress or the Senate could do, because our 
function is to legislate or our function is to have oversight. Our 
function is not to prosecute. Our function is not to go into matters 
that just are illegal. When we go into matters which are improper, then 
it is with a view to changing the law. This is our legitimate function.
  Now, it could be said that we could look into illegal matters from a 
narrower point of view to change the penalty, but that is very 
constrictive and might well fail. We could have been tied up for a long 
period of time if we only had illegal activity with someone mounting a 
challenge that it was beyond the scope of what Congress could do.
  Also, if we are dealing only with illegal activity, there are many 
interpretations that might be made as to what is legal and what is 
illegal, and when those issues are raised they go to court and that can 
take a very long time. For example, Dick Morris, the President's 
campaign impresario, wrote in his book that President Clinton was 
personally involved in editing the commercials which were paid for by 
the Democratic National Committee with so-called soft money.
  Now that would appear on its face to be illegal because you may have 
independent expenditures but you may not have coordinated expenditures 
when someone has accepted public financing. But the argument was made 
that what was done was legal. I am not saying the President did it. 
This accusation is written in a book and it is inadmissible hearsay. We 
have to find out about it. Someone could challenge our inquiry if we 
were limited to illegal activities, although on the face, if true, this 
allegation certainly has all the appearance of illegality.
  Last Thursday the Attorney General said that it was not a 
contribution under the statute for someone to give thousands of 
dollars, millions of dollars, in soft money because that is used only 
on issue advocacy instead of urging the election or defeat of a 
specific candidate. So that if someone gave $1,000 where the money is 
used to, say, elect John Jones or defeat Frank Smith, that would be a 
contribution, but the millions of dollars in soft money would not be a 
contribution under the statute. In my legal judgment, that is palpably 
incorrect, but someone could raise that kind of a consideration.

  So I think we have taken a very, very significant step forward here 
in expanding the scope to cover improper and illegal activities, and as 
the distinguished chairman pointed out, that gives us an opportunity to 
serve the American public by having campaign finance reform.
  Mr. President, I had asked for this special 10 minutes because of 
another deep concern I have in the resolution that is currently drawn, 
and that is with an ending date of December 31, 1997. When you have a 
cutoff date, it is an open invitation to people who want to avoid the 
investigation to engage in legal maneuvers which might well be 
construed to be stalling tactics, although they have a right to do so, 
which could delay the matter long past the expiration day. For example, 
where someone is subpoenaed and the person then pleads the privilege 
against self-incrimination under the fifth amendment, which the 
individual would have a constitutional right to do, it would be up to 
the committee and the Congress to bring forward a charge of contempt of 
Congress because the Congress cannot impose a penalty but has to go for 
enforcement to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 
That all takes time. Then if the individual loses, they have a right to 
take an appeal to the circuit court of appeals, then appeal for a 
petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States.
  So one of the important items I think we need to have a discussion on 
here today is what we will do when we face that situation. The mood of 
the Senate was not such that we could get into extensive amendments of 
this resolution and we agreed not to offer amendments. I think we can 
cover this matter reasonably well by having a discussion with the 
distinguished chairman, the distinguished ranking member. The committee 
can always come back to Congress and ask for an extension.
  What I seek to do here today, Mr. President, is to get a sense from 
the managers as to the circumstances where we would ask for an 
extension. I do not say these are the sole circumstances, but 
illustratively, if someone is subpoenaed and that individual pleads the 
fifth amendment, privilege against self-incrimination, granted 
immunity, ordered to answer, refuses to answer, and there is a contempt 
citation, it goes to the district court and the circuit court and then 
the Supreme Court, I ask my distinguished colleague from Tennessee, the 
chairman of the committee, if that would be an appropriate time for our 
committee to ask for an extension, and I will ask the same question of 
the distinguished ranking member, Senator Glenn, if that would be an 
appropriate circumstance for our committee to seek an extension and 
obtain an extension from the full Senate for whatever time we lost by 
those legal proceedings to compel an answer to that question, and, 
also, then to complete whatever leads that may result? We know it is

[[Page S2123]]

not just the answer that the witness would give but it might lead to 
other evidence, and otherwise if we did not have an extension of time 
we would be stymied on our legitimate investigation.
  I ask my colleague from Tennessee if that would be an occasion for us 
to get an extension beyond the December 31st cutoff.
  Mr. THOMPSON. In response, I think that would be one of the 
circumstances that might lead us to ask for an extension of time.
  It would depend, I think, on the totality of the circumstances. We 
would need to feel that we really needed the additional information 
that was important to our investigation. With that being the case, that 
would be one of those circumstances.
  I might add, the Senator makes a very good and valid point, and one 
that I raised in January on this floor. It is one that I raised in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee when we were discussing scope and 
duration. I also raised it in the Rules Committee the other day. The 
Senator points out the fact that a good defense can sometimes take you 
past any cutoff date that you might establish out there as a target.
  I do not know if the Senator will ask about other circumstances, but 
I can certainly think of a couple of other circumstances that would 
cause the same problem. The White House, for example, in times past, 
has taken positions with regard to questions of executive privilege 
that were not valid. If you want the documents or the testimony, 
usually documents, then you have to go through a process, and you have 
to wind up in court, if you think the documents are important. So that 
is another situation where it would certainly be appropriate, if you 
needed that information, to come back before the Senate and ask for an 
extension of time.

  Third, and most obvious circumstance, would be simply where you run 
into additional leads that are material and substantial and that you 
need to follow up on to make a credible and complete report back to the 
U.S. Senate. All along the way, I have pointed out this problem, as has 
the Senator from Pennsylvania. What we have reached here today on that 
issue is a bit troubling to me, quite frankly. I have tried to point 
out that, although we have a so-called cutoff date of December 31, we 
have said that when those circumstances arise--the three we have 
discussed here--or any other circumstances arise where we have just 
cause to come back, that we will be back. I have been assured by 
Members of both parties, and the Governmental Affairs Committee and the 
Rules Committee, that they would be right there with us in attempting 
to get an extension under those circumstances.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for those answers. 
He has expanded beyond the example I gave of a stalling witness to take 
in other matters. There might be a challenge to our entire 
investigation, which is not possible for us to anticipate today, and 
legal challenges might occur, or other impediments, which may come 
before the investigation or may occur to lead us to seek additional 
time. I am glad to hear the Senator say--and he put it in the Record--
that he discussed it with the leadership and members of the Rules 
Committee, as I have.
  Frankly, I don't like the cutoff date. But people who might tend to 
delay or wear us down will be on notice that we are not unaware of 
that, and that we have anticipated it, to the maximum extent possible.
  I would like to address a question to the ranking member, the Senator 
from Ohio, and ask if he agrees with what the chairman has replied to 
in the colloquy.
  Mr. GLENN. Basically, yes, Mr. President. I think it is right that 
the Senator from Pennsylvania brings this up out of his own 
prosecutorial background. He knows how long court cases can be 
extended. He has had more experience, probably, than anybody in the 
Senate Chamber on that. So he sees a pitfall that we will have to deal 
with. I agree with that.
  I agree, also, that it is impossible for us at this point to say what 
might occur in this area and what court cases there might be or other 
delays or leads that we are having to follow up on that may not be 
wound up or not be brought to conclusion at that exact date. I think 
what it points out is that, as members of that committee, and as 
chairman and as a member of that committee, we just have to be aware 
that if anything like that starts to occur, we bring it back to the 
floor as fast as possible. That is rather key to this whole thing, 
because our authority is only as the Senate gives it to us to go ahead 
with this.
  So it is incumbent upon us to bring it back here as fast as possible 
to get an extension every time, or whatever else is necessary to do. I 
hypothesize here as to whether this happens or that happens, but the 
point the Senator makes is an excellent point and one we are going to 
have to be aware of through the years.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague for that answer. We do know that 
investigations take a very long time, and it is not my preference to 
have a cutoff date of December 31. I think that is very difficult. But 
the reality is that we faced obstacles in the Rules Committee which 
limited the scope, and now we have broadened them and limited the time. 
You have Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, who has been on an 
investigation for 3 years. You have had independent counsel on Iran-
Contra on the investigation for many years. The Senator from Tennessee 
and I, in 1995, were on an investigation of Ruby Ridge. We had 15 days 
of hearings and 70-some witnesses. We filed a 150-plus page report, all 
from Labor Day to the end of the year, in 4 months. And the Department 
of Justice has undertaken an investigation involving four FBI agents 
who may not have told the entire story. They started that inquiry in 
late 1995, and 15, 16, 17 months have passed.
  I recently wrote to the Attorney General and asked her when she is 
going to finish the investigation so we can conclude, and I got a reply 
that it is still months away.
  The Senator from Ohio is correct. When I was district attorney of 
Philadelphia, I ran lots of grand jury proceedings and investigations. 
I know from experience that we are going to face the most tenacious and 
microscopic examinations by the best lawyers in the country coming to 
look at everything we do. I don't like to see a December 31 date. But 
now it has been established, as best we can on the floor, as a target 
date. We are going to respond, and we will extend the time if we have 
to.
  Let us put people on notice that they cannot gain anything by 
delaying with frivolous lawsuits. If they take up our time, we are 
going to get an extension of the time. I thank my colleagues and yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GLENN. I would like to engage the senior Senator from Virginia 
and the Senator from Tennessee in a colloquy regarding the issue of 
referrals to the Ethics Committee. The resolution before us, as 
amended, states that ``the Committee on Governmental Affairs shall 
refer any evidence of illegal or improper activities involving any 
Member of the Senate revealed pursuant to the investigation authorized 
by subsection (b) to the Select Committee on Ethics.''
  In the event the Governmental Affairs Committee develops facts which 
implicate a Senator or Senators in any illegal or improper activities, 
as those terms are used in this resolution, they shall report such 
findings promptly to the Ethics Committee; however, such reporting does 
not preclude the Governmental Affairs Committee from continuing its 
investigation, provided it is not for the specific purpose of 
determining the culpability, or lack thereof, of such Senator or 
Senators.
  Do my distinguished colleagues agree?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes, I agree with the interpretation of the senior 
Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, I also agree with this interpretation by the 
ranking member of the Government Affairs Committee.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, shortly after I was elected to this body, 
I made a call on one of my heroes. His office walls were covered with 
photographs. One of them was an old picture of two men standing next to 
an airplane. I couldn't make out the faces, but there was no mistaking 
the signature. It read simply, ``To our good

[[Page S2124]]

friend Claude Pepper, Wilbur and Orville Wright.''
  Next to that was a picture of an astronaut standing on the surface of 
the Moon. I couldn't see his face. But again, the signature was clear. 
It read, ``To my good friend Claude Pepper, Neil Armstrong.''
  Here was a man who had seen practically the whole scope of the 20th 
century. He'd served in both the House and the Senate. I asked him what 
advice he had for a new Senator from South Dakota.
  He told me, ``The election's over now. It doesn't matter any more 
whether you're an `R' or a `D.' What matters now is whether you're a 
`C' or a `D'--a `constructive' or a `destructive.' I've been here a 
long time. I've seen a lot of people try to tear this country down, and 
too few people who have tried to build it up.''
  ``America needs more constructives,'' he told me.
  I've thought of that conversation many times during the past few 
weeks as we have debated, on and off this floor, how this investigation 
should proceed.
  As the Governmental Affairs Committee has proceeded--hiring lawyers 
and issuing subpoenas--Democrats have raised concerns about how this 
investigation was being structured.
  Our purpose was not to stall this inquiry, but to ensure that it 
serves a constructive purpose, not a destructive one. We have always 
wanted the investigation to go forward. But we also want it to shed 
light on illegal and improper activities--wherever they may have 
occurred. And, most important, we want this investigation to provide a 
road map for real reform of our campaign finance laws.
  How can we make sure this process results in reform, not merely 
revenge? That's what the debate over these last few weeks has been 
about.
  To a large extent, that debate has now been resolved. And Democrats 
are resolved, in turn, to join with Republicans to see that this 
inquiry addresses the significant concerns we all have about the 
problems that surfaced during the last campaign cycle.
  I want to thank Senator Glenn for all he has done to get us to this 
point. He and his staff have been dogged in their determination to make 
sure that this inquiry is truly bipartisan, and that it will lead to 
legislative solutions.
  I also want to thank Senator Thompson.
  We agreed with Senator Thompson when he first said that the 
investigation should examine illegal and improper activities in all 
Federal elections, Presidential and congressional. We fought when 
others tried to narrow that scope.
  We objected to a budget request that was unprecedented and, in our 
opinion, lacked accountability. At the same time, we proposed a process 
to allow the committee to request additional funds and ensure that this 
inquiry does not lapse prematurely.
  We insisted that Congress set at least a tentative date by which the 
inquiry would end, just as earlier Congresses did with investigations 
into the Iran-Contra and Whitewater affairs. Again, we said that 
process could be extended, if necessary.
  We said the Governmental Affairs Committee must produce a public 
report after it completes its work. If the American people are going to 
invest $5 million taxpayer dollars in this investigation, they deserve 
to know what we learn. So we fought for accountability.
  Finally, we believe it's not enough to document the problems in the 
glare of television lights. When the lights are turned off, we have to 
be serious about the hard work of solving the problems. So we asked for 
a commitment from our colleagues that the Senate would debate campaign 
finance reform this year.
  These are the issues we raised--that we were obligated to raise.
  Nearly all of our concerns have been incorporated into the funding 
resolution we will adopt today. Their inclusion is a victory not for 
one party or another, but for the integrity of the inquiry itself.
  It is the strength of our system of government that, when the debate 
has ended and the real work begins, both parties cooperate where they 
can to address public concerns. This, I believe and hope, is where we 
now stand.
  On the central question, Democrats and Republicans agree: this is an 
important investigation.
  Most critical of all is the question of improper foreign influence in 
U.S. elections, and on U.S. policy. This is an American issue, not a 
partisan issue. Have foreign governments sought to influence the 
outcome of American elections?
  Democrats support and will join in the most vigorous inquiry into 
this troubling question. American elections must be decided by American 
voters and funded by Americans, and only Americans.
  Another question, perhaps looming over all the others, is how could 
we get to this point? How could the campaign finance laws break down, 
or appear to break down, so completely that we now must conduct an 
investigation of unprecedented scope and size?
  Many of our Republican colleagues insist that the system is working. 
Yet, in asking for nearly $5 million to conduct this investigation, 
they admit more tellingly than words alone that there is a cancer at 
the core our election laws and their enforcement.
  Congress can't convene hearings of this kind after every election to 
address questions of illegal fundraising. It will have to rely on 
appropriate laws--and effective enforcement. Ensuring sound laws and 
energetic enforcement is the real test of whether the hearings we are 
about to begin make a lasting contribution.
  So, for each of the activities the hearings examine, relevant 
questions need to be asked:
  How widespread was illegal or improper questionable activity? Will we 
find various but discrete episodes, or a pattern to circumvent campaign 
finance laws?
  Who was responsible for failing to oversee compliance? Were the 
violations a result of individual misconduct, or a climate of 
indifference to the law?
  What was the law at the time? Was it clear or unclear? Where we find 
misconduct, was it deliberate, reckless, or inadvertent?
  Where were the lawyers?
  Where was the FEC? What notice was given to the FEC that these 
practices were occurring? What actions, if any, did the FEC take? Are 
there still actions the FEC should take?
  Did the public records, including reports on file with the FEC, 
reflect the misconduct? Or are they inadequate to the task of informing 
the public that something is seriously amiss in the financing of 
campaigns?
  These are critical questions. If we will ask these and other 
questions--without fear or favor--we can achieve historic reforms.
  Will we seize this opportunity, or squander it?
  Will we be ``constructives'' or ``destructives?''
  The choice is up to us.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Does the Senator from Ohio need additional time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee has 4 minutes 30 
seconds. The Senator from Ohio has 1 minute.
  Mr. GLENN. I think the vote was called for 6:30. I think we have 
about exhausted everything we need to comment on.
  I will yield back my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I will yield back the balance of my time, also.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DODD. (When his name was called) Present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

[[Page S2125]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 29 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
      
  So the resolution (S. Res. 39), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
resolution was agreed to.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

                          ____________________