[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the quorum call be rescinded.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amendment No. 21 be withdrawn, and the committee substitute, as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The amendment (No. 21) was withdrawn.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.
____________________