[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 33 (Friday, March 14, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2299-S2308]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  APPOINTMENT OF AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF 
                          ILLEGAL FUNDRAISING

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of S.J. Res. 22, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 22) to express the sense of 
     the Congress concerning the application by the Attorney 
     General for the appointment of an independent counsel to 
     investigate allegations of illegal fundraising in the 1996 
     Presidential election campaign.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to speak on Senate Joint 
Resolution 22 which expresses the sense of the Congress that the 
Attorney General should apply for the appointment of an independent 
counsel to investigate allegations of illegal fundraising in the 1996 
Presidential election campaign.

[[Page S2300]]

  Under Federal law, the Attorney General may apply to the special 
division of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for appointment 
of an independent counsel whenever, after completion of a preliminary 
investigation, she finds that a conflict of interest exists or when she 
finds evidence that a specific category of individuals within the 
executive branch may have violated Federal law. The appointment of an 
independent counsel is a serious matter and one which the Attorney 
General should only initiate when necessary. That is why I, and many 
others, had refrained from joining the assortment of calls for Attorney 
General Reno to appoint an independent counsel in connection with the 
1996 Presidential campaign.
  Yet, yesterday, all 10 Republicans on the Judiciary Committee felt 
the time had come to request such an appointment. We sent a letter to 
the Attorney General, as authorized by the independent counsel statute, 
requesting that she make an application for an independent counsel. I 
ask unanimous consent that a copy of our letter to the Attorney General 
be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HATCH. We did that with due deliberation, without any desire to 
hurt anybody and without any desire to do other than to help the 
Attorney General make this decision.
  I must confess to a degree of frustration with the Independent 
Counsel Act. Did I appreciate having to send our letter? Certainly not. 
However, the law sets forth a specific process by which Congress is to 
request that the Attorney General begin the process by which an 
independent counsel is appointed, and this process requires the 
Judiciary Committee to make what the other party will inevitably 
characterize as partisan charges in order to trigger the Attorney 
General's responsibilities. In order for Congress to trigger the most 
preliminary steps for the Department of Justice to take to consider the 
need for an independent counsel, the law essentially provides that the 
party not in control of the executive branch make specific charges when 
and if the Attorney General fails to act on her own. I would have 
preferred to have had the Attorney General seek an independent counsel 
on her own. But she has not done so. At the very least, I would have 
preferred that she conduct a preliminary investigation on her own. But 
she has refused to do even this. I would have preferred to have 
requested that she seek an independent counsel without having to set 
forth, in such a public manner as the law requires, the specific and 
credible evidence which warrants such an appointment. But in order for 
us to require the Attorney General to take certain minimal steps toward 
investigating whether an independent counsel is warranted, we were 
required by law to send our letter. In short, the Independent Counsel 
Act is the law of the land and, notwithstanding its relative flaws, we 
on the Judiciary Committee have an obligation to abide by it.
  At last week's Judiciary Committee executive business meeting, I had 
hoped to vote on a resolution expressing the committee's sense that an 
independent counsel should be appointed, and directing that I draft and 
circulate a letter requesting that the Attorney General apply for such 
an appointment. I had been led to believe that a committee vote on a 
resolution calling for an independent counsel would have broad 
bipartisan support. Yet, my colleague, Senator Leahy--the committee's 
ranking member--indicated that, in light of the short notice they 
received about the proposed resolution, he and his colleagues wished to 
hold the resolution over until the committee's next business meeting. I 
readily acceded to their request.
  It was not an unreasonable request. And besides, I was asked to begin 
this process just an evening before myself, and I had not had the 
opportunity to discuss it with Senator Leahy. So there was absolutely 
no offense. It was something I was willing to do and readily did 
because I thought it was a reasonable, decent request.
  Without getting into the details of our ensuing discussions, it 
became clear that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to 
formulate a resolution on which both sides of the aisle could agree. 
Furthermore, I felt it was best to avoid a prolonged discussion of this 
matter in committee given that it was unlikely consensus could be 
reached. Accordingly, I decided to proceed directly to drafting and 
circulating a letter to the Attorney General as I had originally 
planned. The letter went through a number of variations. We tried to 
please people, we tried to resolve problems, and I think we 
have. Unfortunately, we were unable to reach agreement with our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle because we could not reach 
agreement on whether the committee should actually request the 
appointment of an independent counsel. Accordingly, I circulated a 
letter to all members of the committee and a majority of the 
committee's members signed on.

  I remain persuaded that the appointment of an independent counsel is 
both called for under the independent counsel statute and responsive to 
the views of most Americans, who would like to be assured that these 
very serious allegations are investigated in a fair and thorough way, 
and without any real or apparent conflict of interest.
  I am hopeful that Attorney General Reno, for whom I continue to have 
great respect, will appreciate the concerns set forth in our letter, 
and will agree that an independent counsel should be appointed 
forthwith to investigate these matters.
  Recent developments have, I believe, made clear that a thorough 
Justice Department investigation into possible fundraising violations 
in connection with the 1996 Presidential campaign will raise an 
inherent conflict of interest, and certainly raises at least the 
appearance of such a conflict, and that the appointment of an 
independent counsel is therefore required to ensure public confidence 
in the integrity of our electoral process and system of justice.
  Madam President, recent revelations have demonstrated how the DNC 
was, as the New York Times wrote, ``virtually a subsidiary of the White 
House.'' That was on February 27, 1997, just a few weeks back. Without 
restating the points covered in our letter and without questioning in 
the slightest the integrity, professionalism or independence of the 
Attorney General or the individuals conducting the present Justice 
Department fundraising investigation, the fact that the Department's 
investigation will inescapably take it to the highest levels of the 
executive branch presents an inherent conflict of interest calling for 
the appointment of an independent counsel under title 28 United States 
Code section 591(c)(1).
  Further, the answer to whether criminal wrongdoing has occurred will 
of necessity turn on the resolution of disputed factual, legal, and 
state of mind determinations. In particular, I would note that there 
remains the significant factual question of the extent to which the 
allegedly improper fundraising activity was, in fact, directed toward 
benefiting Federal campaigns, especially when some of this activity 
was, by admission, paid for by the Clinton-Gore campaign. Because the 
inquiry necessary to make these determinations will inescapably involve 
high level executive branch officials, they should, I believe, be left 
to an independent counsel in order to avoid a real or apparent conflict 
of interest. Moreover, where individuals covered by the independent 
counsel statute are involved, as they plainly were here, see title 28 
United States Code section 591(b), the Ethics in Government Act 
requires that these inquiries be conducted by an independent counsel.
  In any event, both prudence and the American people's ability to have 
confidence that the investigation remains free of a conflict of 
interest, warrants the appointment of an independent counsel.
  More importantly, the emerging story regarding the possibility that 
foreign contributions were funneled into U.S. election coffers to 
influence U.S. foreign policy further highlights the conflict of 
interest the Attorney General's ongoing investigation inescapably 
confronts. I delivered a floor speech earlier in the week spelling out 
my concerns, so I will not restate them here. They are detailed in the 
letter which I have placed in the Record. It is clear, however, that 
these issues cannot be properly investigated without a conflict of 
interest, since investigating

[[Page S2301]]

most of these questions will require inquiring into the knowledge and/
or conduct of individuals at the highest levels of the executive 
branch. Moreover, several of the principal figures in this 
investigation, including the Riadys and the Lippo Group and Charlie 
Trie, reportedly have longstanding ties to our President.
  Indeed, the conflicts at issue here are precisely the sort of 
inherent conflict[s] of interest to which the Attorney General 
testified during Senate hearings in 1993 on the reenactment of the 
Independent Counsel Act. Avoiding an actual or perceived conflict of 
interest was the basis, not just for the application for the 
appointment of an independent counsel to investigate James McDougal, 
but also for the recent requests to extend that counsel's jurisdiction 
to include the investigations of Anthony Marceca and Bernard Nussbaum. 
As the Attorney General herself testified, applying for an independent 
counsel, and our request that she make such application, in no way 
detracts from the integrity and independence of the Attorney General or 
the career prosecutors presently investigating these allegations.
  A final point should be made. Some of my Democrat colleagues have 
written to the Attorney General urging her, should she decide to apply 
for an independent counsel, to request an independent counsel who will 
investigate the full scope of fundraising irregularities. They argue 
that she should avoid partisanship by instructing the independent 
counsel to investigate Republicans who have skirted the spirit of the 
law. I appreciate what my colleagues are trying to do, and their 
loyalty to their political party is duly noted by me. But, as I 
discussed a moment ago, the appointment of an independent counsel is a 
very serious matter and partisan proportionality should not even be the 
slightest consideration. Would these Senators have sent this letter had 
the majority not sent our letter to the Attorney General? I think we 
all know the answer to that question.
  Furthermore, they fail to even suggest that the Republican activities 
to which they refer independently warrant an independent counsel. 
Accordingly, I expect the Attorney General, who is a woman of 
integrity, will give their letter the consideration it deserves.
  In closing, Attorney General Reno has appointed four independent 
counsels to date. It is the sense of the majority of the members of the 
Judiciary Committee that the need to avoid even the appearance of a 
conflict of interest, and thereby to ensure the public's confidence in 
our system of justice, requires an independent counsel in connection 
with the 1996 Presidential campaign. Should the Senate vote on Senate 
Joint Resolution 22, I will be voting in support of the resolution, and 
I think rightly so.
  I call upon my friends on the other side of the aisle to consider 
voting for it as well. Voting that the Attorney General appoint an 
independent counsel in this case appears to me to be the right thing to 
do. Keep in mind, I have held off making this request for a lengthy 
period of time, knowing my constitutional duty and our constitutional 
duties here, because I wanted the Attorney General to have enough time, 
and those who are working with her who are people, I believe, of 
substance and integrity, to investigate and look into this and resolve 
these matters. But as these matters have accumulated, as the 
allegations have mounted up, as newspaper upon newspaper has written 
about them, it is clear that there is at least an appearance of a 
conflict of interest, and, therefore, it left us with no alternative 
other than to request this, even though, to repeat, I wish no one any 
harm. I certainly hope that these allegations are untrue, I hope they 
can be proven to be untrue, and my prayers will be in that regard.
  Having said all of that, I do hope that the Attorney General will 
take the necessary step to apply for the appointment of an independent 
counsel and that one will be appointed. Then perhaps we can resolve 
these matters once and for all in an independent, reasonable way that I 
think will be for the benefit of everybody.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                   Washington, DC, March 13, 1997.
     Hon. Janet Reno,
     Attorney General of the United States, U.S. Department of 
         Justice, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Attorney General: This letter serves as a formal 
     request, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 592(g)(1), that you apply 
     for the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate 
     possible fundraising violations in connection with the 1996 
     presidential campaign. The purpose of this letter is not to 
     provide an exhaustive list of the particular allegations 
     that, we believe, warrant further investigation. Indeed, 
     since the Department of Justice has been conducting an 
     extensive investigation into fundraising irregularities for 
     several months now, you presumably have far greater knowledge 
     than do we of the various matters that are being, and will 
     need to be, investigated, and we presume that your judgment 
     as to the necessity of an independent counsel is based on all 
     of the information before you. Rather, the purpose of this 
     letter is to articulate why we believe this investigation 
     should be conducted by an independent counsel. As you know, 
     the Senate Committee on the Judiciary has, to date, refrained 
     from joining the assortment of other individuals who have 
     called upon you to initiate an independent counsel 
     appointment. Recent developments over the past few weeks, 
     however, have persuaded us that such an appointment is now 
     necessary.
       When you appeared before the Senate in 1993 when we were 
     considering reenactment of the Independent Counsel statute, 
     you stated
       ``there is an inherent conflict of interest whenever senior 
     Executive Branch officials are to be investigated by the 
     Department of Justice and its appointed head, the Attorney 
     General. The Attorney General serves as the pleasure of the 
     President. Recognition of this conflict does not belittle or 
     demean the impressive professionalism of the Department's 
     career prosecutors, nor does it question the integrity of the 
     Attorney General and his or her political appointees. 
     Instead, it recognizes the importance of public confidence in 
     our system of justice, and the destructive effect in a free 
     democracy of public cynicism.''
       You further testified that--
       ``It is absolutely essential for the public to have 
     confidence in the system and you cannot do that when there is 
     conflict or an appearance of conflict in the person who is, 
     in effect, the chief prosecutor. * * * The Independent 
     Counsel Act was designed to avoid even the appearance of 
     impropriety in the consideration of allegations of misconduct 
     by high-level Executive Branch officials and to prevent * * * 
     the actual or perceived conflicts of interest. The Act thus 
     served as a vehicle to further the public's perception of 
     fairness and thoroughness in such matters, and to avert even 
     the most subtle influences that may appear in an 
     investigation of highly-placed Executive officials.''
       We believe, that, in light of recent developments, a 
     thorough Justice Department investigation into possible 
     fundraising violations in connection with the 1996 
     presidential campaign will raise an inherent conflict of 
     interest, and that the appointment of an independent counsel 
     is therefore required to ensure public confidence in the 
     integrity of our electoral process and system of justice.
       First, recent revelations have demonstrated how officials 
     at the highest level of the White House were involved in 
     formulating, coordinating and implementing the DNC's 
     fundraising efforts for the 1996 presidential campaign. 
     Recent press reports, the files released by Mr. Ickes, and 
     public statements by very high ranking present and former 
     Clinton Administration officials indicate how extensively the 
     Administration was involved in planning, coordinating, and 
     implementing DNC fundraising strategy and activities. All 
     this has led The New York Times to a conclusion which we find 
     hard to challenge; namely, that ``the latest documentation 
     shows clearly that the Democratic National Committee was 
     virtually a subsidiary of the White House. Not only was 
     [President] Clinton overseeing its fund-raising efforts, not 
     only was he immersed in its ad campaigns, but D.N.C. 
     employees were installed at the White House, using White 
     House visitors' lists and communicating constantly with 
     [President] Clinton's policy advisers.'' The New York Times, 
     February 27, 1997. As a consequence, we believe that a 
     thorough investigation of all but the most trivial potential 
     campaign fundraising improprieties necessarily includes an 
     inquiry into the possible knowledge and/or complicity of very 
     senior white House officials in these improprieties. We 
     believe that, without questioning in the slightest the 
     integrity, professionalism or independence of the Attorney 
     General or the individuals conducting the present Justice 
     Department fundraising investigation, the fact that the 
     Department's investigation will inescapably take it to the 
     highest levels of the Executive Branch presents an inherent 
     conflict of interest calling for the appointment of an 
     independent counsel under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 591(c).
       Moreover, these revelations raise new questions of possible 
     wrongdoing by senior White House officials themselves, 
     including but not limited to whether federal officials may 
     have illegally solicited and/or received contributions on 
     federal property; whether specific solicitations were ever 
     made by federal officials at the numerous White House 
     overnights, coffees, and other similar events, and whether 
     these events themselves, often characterized in White House 
     and DNC memoranda as ``fundraising'' events, constituted 
     improper ``solications'' on federal

[[Page S2302]]

     property; whether government property and employees may 
     have been used illegally to further campaign interests; 
     and whether the close coordination by the White House over 
     the raising and spending of ``soft''--and purportedly 
     independent--DNC funds violated federal election laws, 
     and/or had the legal effect of rendering those funds 
     subject to campaign finance limitations they otherwise 
     would not be subject to. It seems to us that, even 
     accepting the narrow constructions of some of the 
     governing statutes that have been suggested--which are not 
     necessarily the constructions an independent counsel would 
     render--the answer to whether criminal wrongdoing has 
     occurred will of necessity turn on the resolution of 
     disputed factual, legal, and state of mind determinations. 
     Because the inquiry necessary to make these determinations 
     will inescapably involve high level Executive Branch 
     officials, we believe they should be left to an 
     independent counsel in order to avoid a real or apparent 
     conflict of interest. Moreover, where individuals covered 
     by the independent counsel statute are involved, as they 
     plainly were here, see 28 U.S.C. Sec. 591(b), the Ethics 
     in Government Act requires that these inquiries be 
     conducted by an independent counsel. Whether the Act 
     simply permits or requires the appointment of an 
     independent counsel, however, we believe that prudence and 
     the American people's ability to have confidence that the 
     investigation remains free of a conflict of interest, 
     requires it.
       Second, the emerging story regarding the possibility that 
     foreign contributions were funneled into U.S. election 
     coffers to influence U.S. foreign policy further highlights 
     the conflict of interest your ongoing investigation 
     inescapably confronts. A March 9, 1997, Washington Post 
     article quoted ``U.S. government officials--presumably 
     familiar with the Department's ongoing investigation--as 
     stating that investigators have obtained `` `conclusive 
     evidence' '' that Chinese government funds were funneled into 
     the United States last year,'' and quoted one official as 
     stating that ``there is no question that money was 
     laundered.'' This article reported that U.S. officials 
     described a plan by China ``to spend nearly $2 million to buy 
     influence not only in Congress but also within the Clinton 
     Administration.'' If the FBI truly is investigating these 
     allegations, as is reported, and this investigation extends 
     to high level Executive Branch officials, it raises an 
     inherent conflict of interest.
       Moreover, a closer look at the activities and associations 
     of some of the particular individuals who are reported to be 
     the principal figures in the ongoing investigation further 
     illustrates why this investigation ultimately must involve 
     high levels of the Executive Branch. Especially troubling is 
     the information revealed to date regarding the Riady family 
     and their associate, Mr. John Huang, but serious questions 
     are also raised by the activities and associations of Mr. 
     Charles Yah Lin Trie, Ms. Pauline Kanalanchak, and Mr. Johnny 
     Chung, among others. Taken together, these reported events 
     raise a host of serious questions warranting further 
     investigation: To what extent were illegal contributions from 
     foreign sources, in particular China, being funneled into the 
     United States, and with whose knowledge and involvement? To 
     what extent was U.S. policy influenced by these 
     contributions, and with whose knowledge and/or involvement? 
     To what extent were the decisions to hire Huang at the 
     Commerce Department, to support most-favored-nation status 
     for China and Chinese accession to the World Trade 
     Organization, or to normalize relations with Vietnam, 
     influenced by contributions, and with whose knowledge and/
     or involvement? To what extent was the standard NSC 
     screening process for admission to the White House waived 
     or modified so as to permit special access to large donors 
     and their guests where it would ordinarily be denied, and 
     with whose knowledge and/or involvement? To what extent 
     was John Huang placed at the DNC to raise money in 
     exchange for past and future favors, and with whose 
     knowledge and/or investment?
       It is evident that these questions cannot be properly 
     investigated without a conflict of interest, since 
     investigating most of these questions will require inquiring 
     into the knowledge and/or conduct of individuals at the 
     highest levels of the Executive Branch. Moreover, several of 
     the principal figures in this investigation, including the 
     Riadys and the Lippo Group and Charlie Trie, reportedly have 
     longstanding ties to President Clinton.
       Indeed, the conflicts at issue here are precisely the sort 
     of ``inherent conflict[s] of interest'' to which you 
     testified during Senate hearings in 1993 on the re-enactment 
     of the Independent Counsel Act. Avoiding an actual or 
     perceived conflict of interest was the basis not just for 
     your application for the appointment of an independent 
     counsel to investigate James McDougal, but also for your 
     recent requests to extend that counsel's jurisdiction to 
     include investigations of Anthony Marceca and Bernard 
     Nussbaum. The same concern warrants your application for an 
     independent counsel here, where public confidence can be 
     assured only by the appointment of an independent counsel to 
     investigate any alleged wrongdoing in connection with DNC, 
     Clinton Administration, and Clinton/Gore Campaign fundraising 
     during the 1994-1996 election cycle. As you yourself 
     testified, applying for an independent counsel, and our 
     request that you make such an application, in no way detracts 
     from the integrity and independence of the Attorney General 
     or the career prosecutors presently investigating these 
     allegations.
       Pursuant to the statute, please report back to the 
     Committee within 30 days whether you have begun or will begin 
     a preliminary investigation, identifying all of the 
     allegations you are presently investigating or as to which 
     you have received information, and indicating whether you 
     believe each of these allegations are based on specific 
     information from credible sources, and either pertain to a 
     covered individual or present a conflict of interest. Please 
     also provide your reasons for those determinations. See 28 
     U.S.C. 592(g)(2). In the event you conduct a preliminary 
     investigation, but do not apply for the appointment of an 
     independent counsel, or apply for an independent counsel but 
     only with respect to some of the various allegations on which 
     you have received information, please identify all those 
     allegations which in your view do not warrant appointment of 
     an independent counsel, and explain your view whether those 
     allegations warrant further investigation, pertain to a 
     covered individual, and/or present a conflict of interest 
     See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 592(g)(3).
           Sincerely,
         Orrin G. Hatch, Charles E. Grassley, John Ashcroft, 
           Spencer Abraham, Mike DeWine, Strom Thurmond, Arlen 
           Specter, Jon Kyl, Fred Thompson, Jeff Sessions.

  Mr. HATCH. Madam 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GRAMS). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the first comment this morning is that 
everybody wishes the President well in his upcoming surgery. It is 
almost like those in some of the terrorist groups that go out and 
kneecap somebody and then send flowers to them in the hospital. I am 
not suggesting that there is hypocrisy in it, but I am waiting for all 
of the requests for special counsel and for some of my friends on the 
other side to ask for a resolution to spend money to send Senators in 
surgical gowns out to Bethesda to make sure the President really is out 
there having an operation.
  It has reached that kind of a level around here. For some of my 
colleagues, if President Clinton were to walk across the water to save 
somebody from drowning, the headline in their statement would be, ``It 
proves he can't swim.''
  When I hear some of the statements being made, I am reminded of a 
what a former Republican President--who, incidentally, was one of the 
best fundraisers I have ever known--said, ``Well, there you go again.''
  Some in the Congress simply cannot avoid the temptation to jump the 
gun, draw the most negative possible inferences, and take every 
opportunity to discredit those who serve in the Government, and, as one 
who has served for years in law enforcement, they also take every 
possibility to discredit those who serve in law enforcement, and demand 
yet another costly, time-consuming, largely unaccountable and 
potentially destructive independent counsel investigation so long as it 
is limited to only investigating a Democratic President.

  Senate Joint Resolution 22 does not advance the administration of 
justice. I think it is a kind of partisan effort at political spin. It 
comes at the end of a week during which the Senate rejected the 
majority leader's version of a resolution to restrict the Governmental 
Affairs Committee investigation. That resolution, before it passed, was 
altered during our floor debate to include examination of improper as 
well as illegal fundraising activities and finally to include such 
activities in congressional as well as the Presidential campaign. It 
then passed 99 to nothing.
  The joint resolution before us is a similarly ill-conceived effort. 
It was introduced before the Rules Committee or the Senate moved to 
consider, amend and reamend the funding resolution for the Governmental 
Affairs Committee. It was introduced before the Judiciary Committee met 
on a committee resolution on March 6. It was introduced before the 
Republican and Democratic members of the Senate and House Judiciary 
Committees sent letters to the Attorney General. Those letters are the 
congressional actions contemplated by the independent counsel law. This 
resolution is not.

[[Page S2303]]

  In fact, this resolution, if it were introduced as a bill rather than 
merely a sense of the Senate resolution and then passed as a law, would 
not pass constitutional muster.
  It is very, very easy to stand here and say go out and look at the 
President; do not look at anything we do. Whatever you do, do not look 
at the House or Senate Members of Congress. But let us go after the 
President.
  Mr. President, what we are saying is that our regular law enforcement 
agencies cannot do the job. We in Congress can. That is a laugh. As I 
said, I spent nearly 9 years in law enforcement. I know that the 
Attorney General and the others in law enforcement here have the 
independence to do what needs to be done. But I also know that it is 
the height of hypocrisy to say look at them; do not look at us.
  The American people, the public, want more than anything else real 
campaign reform. The Republican leadership of the House and Senate 
could bring campaign reform measures to the floor today and ask us to 
have votes on them. Instead, they want to spend days and days and days 
bashing the President. Even while he is lying in the hospital in 
Bethesda for surgery, they will spend days bashing him, hoping that 
nobody will notice the tens of thousands of dollars we will spend in 
this Chamber in this debate and the printing costs of it all. They are 
hoping that maybe the American public will not ask the question: If you 
have all that time and money and effort to spend, why not debate real 
campaign finance reform and vote on it--campaign finance reform that 
would apply not just to the President and Vice President but would 
apply to every Democrat, Republican and Independent in the House and 
Senate and every Democrat and Republican and every Independent who 
might challenge an incumbent.
  The fact is that if you took a poll today and asked the American 
public, do you want real campaign finance reform, the response would be 
a resounding yes. I hope the America public will ask the Republican 
leadership of the Senate and the Republican leadership of the House, 
because they are the ones responsible for setting the legislative 
agenda, when are you going to bring campaign finance reform to the 
floor? The President has said he will sign the bill. Unlike the last 
strong, tough campaign finance reform bill that was passed by the House 
and Senate and went to the White House for signature and was vetoed by 
the former President, this President has said he will sign such a bill.
  It is going to be easy during the vacation set up in a week for the 
House and Senate, for Members to go home and give wonderful speeches 
and say we are in favor of campaign finance reform. We are all in 
favor, just like we are in favor of God and motherhood. But I hope 
people ask, but have you voted on it? When are you going to vote on it? 
Bring it up and have a vote on real campaign finance reform.

  Now, some Members will vote against it and some Members will vote for 
it. But at least the American public will know how their Member of the 
House and their Senators voted. That is all we are asking.
  I understand and I have great respect for some Senators who do not 
want to vote for a campaign finance reform bill, even those who oppose 
campaign finance reform legislation. I do not question their motives. 
Let them vote against it. But I also respect those such as Senator 
Feingold and Senator McCain who have brought forward a campaign finance 
reform bill, and they ought to have a vote on it. That is all I am 
asking. Stop the smokescreens of Friday afternoon talks about 
investigating the President. I am sure they will pause at some point to 
wish him well during his surgery this afternoon and then they will go 
right back to bashing him.
  Why not say here, Mr. President, we will actually do what we are 
hired to do, what we are elected to do, what we are paid to do. We will 
pass a campaign finance reform law.
  In fact, while we are at it, maybe we ought to pass the chemical 
weapons treaty.
  While we are at it, maybe we ought to pass a budget. My good friends 
on the other side of the aisle criticize the President's budget. Well, 
they have a majority of the votes in the House and Senate to pass their 
own. In fact, the law requires them to do it shortly after the 
vacation. Let us see if they will pass one.
  It occurs to me the kind of votes necessary to pass a budget are the 
kind of votes that might cause some political pain on the right and the 
left, and maybe that is why we do not actually vote on those kinds of 
things. It occurs to me that if we passed a bill on campaign finance 
reform, it would actually cause some pain, especially for those of us 
who are incumbents, and maybe that is why the leadership will not bring 
that bill to the floor. It occurs to me that the reason these 
resolutions about investigations are very carefully aimed at the 
President and exclude any consideration of possible improper activity 
on the part of Members of Congress is that maybe--maybe--some who are 
supporting them want to make sure no gaze of a special prosecutor is 
directed at activities of Members of Congress.
  There are only 100 people at any one time who are given the 
opportunity to be in the Senate. I do not question the fact that you 
have to have some partisan motivations to get elected in the first 
place. But when you are here and take an oath of office, an oath to 
uphold the Constitution, to represent the whole country and to uphold 
the Constitution of the United States, let us not have partisan games 
that are more reflective of somebody running for some minor county 
office somewhere. We are supposed to be reflecting the interests of all 
of the United States. We are supposed to be reflecting the interests of 
all people. What we do as the Senate should reflect the conscience of 
the United States. The Senate should be, and at times has been, the 
conscience of this great country. But, when we engage in partisan games 
aimed at sliming the President, but at the same time protecting every 
single thing we do, that is not representing the conscience of the 
United States. That is not rising to the level of what the U.S. Senate 
should be.

  If Members want to investigate the President on fundraising 
activities, then be honest enough to say we will apply the same 
searchlight, the same magnifying glass, the same standards to 
ourselves. Do not give a hypocritical image of the U.S. Senate to the 
American people by saying we will go after the President but we will 
make sure that nobody looks at us, nobody asks us if any of us had done 
the exact same things we are asking the President not to do. That is 
not showing the kind of respect we should have for this Senate, for 
this body, for the precedents we establish here.
  This resolution before us is not authorized by the independent 
counsel law. If it were a separate bill, it would not pass 
constitutional muster. It is an inappropriate effort to pressure the 
Attorney General to prejudge these matters. It would pervert the 
independent counsel process under the law. The independent counsel law 
was designed to protect the independence of investigatory and 
prosecutorial decisions, including those of the Attorney General. This 
resolution would say that Congress does not want the Attorney General 
to be independent. The resolution says that we want to step in and tell 
her what to do and how to do it. The independent counsel law was passed 
to ensure that investigative and prosecutorial decisions are made 
without regard to political pressure, but this action by the Senate 
would subvert that purpose by subjecting the critical initial decisions 
about invoking the law to just such political pressure.
  We are saying to the Attorney General, do not you use any of your 
judgment. We will tell you what you have to think. When I was a 
prosecutor, I know what I would have told any legislative body that 
told me how to exercise my prosecutorial discretion. It is not 
Congress' place to determine whether and when to bring criminal 
charges. As a former prosecutor, I say this body is ill-suited to that 
purpose. The administration of justice is ill-served by efforts to 
intimidate a prosecutor to begin a case, just as it would be ill-served 
by the legislature trying to intimidate a prosecutor to end a case.
  This resolution will serve only to undermine the investigation that 
the Attorney General now has underway. It will undercut the independent 
counsel law and I believe it further erodes public confidence in 
Government's ability

[[Page S2304]]

to do its job. We ought to do our job and let the Attorney General do 
hers.
  Part of our job would be to pass campaign finance reform. But you see 
absolutely no effort by the Republican leadership to bring such a bill 
to the floor for a vote. Part of our job would be to vote up or down on 
the chemical weapons treaty, but you see no effort on the part of the 
Republican leadership to bring that to a vote. Part of our job would be 
to pass a budget, vote it up or down, but you see no effort on the part 
of the Republican leadership to bring that to a vote on the floor. What 
this resolution does is take the Senate down another detour, away from 
the critical work that we should be doing and is being left undone.
  I have been here 22 years. I have been proud to work with Republicans 
and Democrats on major legislation. On the floor of the Senate during 
last year's Presidential election, I took the floor of the Senate to 
praise the former Republican leader, Senator Bob Dole. I praised him 
during the height of the Presidential election year, saying he is a man 
I had worked with closely for bipartisan solutions on farm bills, on 
hunger issues, on school lunch, school breakfasts, and the Women, 
Infants, and Children Programs. We forged a bipartisan consensus, just 
as I have been proud to do with so many other Members on the Republican 
side, and just as so many real leaders in the Republican Party have 
done as they have worked with Members of the Democrat side to form a 
bipartisan consensus on issues that are most important to the United 
States of America.
  Unfortunately, when you have things like this resolution, which are 
so blatantly partisan, where little effort is made to bring about a 
bipartisan resolution, we find ourselves going further away from the 
kind of bipartisan approach to the Nation's problems that we heard so 
much about when this session was beginning.

  It is almost as though some go out and have a pollster ask, ``What do 
you American people want of us?'' They will get back from the pollster 
that the people want us to work together, they want us to have 
bipartisan solutions, they want us to show more civility, they want us 
to work together in the interests of the country. So what do these 
well-informed legislators proceed to do? They go on the Sunday talk 
shows and have weekend press conferences and say that it is a new day, 
that there is an effort for bipartisan consensus. They say what they 
think the people want to hear.
  But do we see a bipartisan effort on a budget resolution? No. Do we 
see a bipartisan effort on a chemical weapons treaty? No. Do we see a 
bipartisan effort to confirm Federal judges?
  There has not been one single judge confirmed yet this Congress. You 
know, there is a heck of a lot more effort given to somehow influencing 
the appointment of an independent counsel or special prosecutor, by 
this body, than there is to considering and confirming Federal judges. 
Not one single Federal judge has been confirmed by this Congress. Not 
one court of appeals judge was confirmed in the last session of 
Congress. The Chief Justice of the United States, a conservative 
Republican, appointed first by one Republican President as a member of 
the Supreme Court and subsequently by another Republican President as 
Chief Justice, has said we have reached a crisis situation. There are 
nearly 100 vacancies in our Federal courts. Justice is not only 
delayed, justice is denied to American people--all American people, 
Republicans and Democrats alike.
  Everybody knows it is a crisis. But this Senate, with all the talk 
about bipartisanship, has not confirmed one single Federal judge. In 
fact, I think there is only one scheduled for consideration by the 
Senate. At this rate--I am 56 years old--through normal attrition and 
all, if we keep on at this rate, when I am 156, instead of 100 
vacancies we will have 300 or 400 vacancies.
  This is not the way to show any kind of bipartisan consensus. If we 
spend one-tenth as much of an effort at confirming Federal judges that 
we are supposed to, that we are paid to do, that we are elected to do 
we might begin to fulfill our responsibilities. If we spend one-tenth 
the effort on confirming judges that we spend on cranking up more and 
more multimillion dollar investigations of the President, we might 
accomplish something. But, obviously, that is not intended in this new 
era of bipartisanship.
  We spent the first 2 months of this year debating a proposed 
constitutional amendment that is unnecessary, unsound, and unwise, but 
a bumper-sticker approach to the problems of budget deficits and the 
need to balance our Federal budget. We have not spent 38 seconds on 
this floor actually debating a real budget. We have not spent 21 
seconds; we haven't spent a nanosecond. We spent 2 months talking about 
something that might take effect in the next century. But we have not 
spent 2 seconds debating something that will take effect this year.

  Mr. President, I fear for the Senate. I am proud of the Senate. I am 
proud of being here for 22 years. I am proud of serving with great 
Republican leaders and great Democratic leaders. I am proud of serving 
with men and women from both the Republican and Democratic side whom I 
consider true national leaders.
  What makes me proud is they have come together for the best interest 
of the United States, not leaving behind their party allegiances, but 
being first and foremost Americans and U.S. Senators and doing what is 
best for the country. I do not see that happening now, Mr. President. 
It fills this Senator with a great deal of sorrow.
  This is not the way we do things in my State. In my State, we will 
fight for our elections. Some win, some lose. Then we come together as 
Republicans and Democrats for what is best for Vermont. We, U.S. 
Senators, 100 of us having a chance to represent more than 250 million 
Americans, ought to do what is best for this country. A quarter of a 
billion Americans expect the 100 men and women of this body to do that, 
and we are not bringing together the bipartisan consensus we used to 
and that we need to achieve.
  I talked about the bumper-sticker sloganeering of the constitutional 
amendment. It failed here. In the House, they have not even had a 
committee markup. The Republican Party decided not to do that. For 
whatever their reasons are, I hope now, after spending months on that 
ill-fated effort, we can actually debate and pass a budget. I tell my 
friends on the other side of the center aisle that if they really want 
to work on a bipartisan budget, we can. For that matter, they do not 
have to ask for a single Democratic vote. There are enough Republicans 
in the House and Senate to pass a budget, as the law requires, by April 
15, if they really want to.
  Mr. President, I have talked about judicial vacancies. Twenty-five 
percent of the current vacancies have persisted for more than 18 
months. A quarter of the judicial vacancies in this country have been 
there for a year and a half. This is justice delayed, this is justice 
denied, this is wrong.
  I have served here twice in the majority and twice in the minority. I 
have served here when the President of the United States was President 
Gerald Ford, then President Carter, then President Reagan, then 
President Bush, and now President Clinton. Never in my memory, under 
Republican Presidents or Democratic Presidents, with Republican Senates 
or Democratic Senates, never has the leadership of this body ever 
allowed a situation when judicial vacancies would exist in this number 
for this long. Never.
  Republican leaders like Howard Baker or Bob Dole or Hugh Scott, 
Democratic leaders like Mike Mansfield or Bob Byrd or George Mitchell 
or Tom Daschle never countenanced such a thing. Never would these great 
leaders have done this. Never have they allowed the Federal judiciary 
to get in such an abysmal state, when the Chief Justice has to say it 
is a crisis, when the Chief Justice says: ``It is hoped that the 
Administration and Congress will continue to recognize that filling 
judicial vacancies is crucial to the fair and effective administration 
of justice.'' And yet, we have to tell him today that we are not doing 
it, we are not doing our job.
  A little over a year ago, the Republican majority of the House and 
Senate closed down the whole Government, for days on end, weeks on end, 
to make a political point. The political point is that they wasted 
hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money 
and the American public found out the Speaker of the House, at

[[Page S2305]]

one point, had to go out the back door of Air Force One--obviously, the 
kind of affront that they felt justified wasting hundreds of millions 
of dollars of taxpayers' money.
  They were making a political point and the Government was closed 
down. Some say billions of dollars were wasted. It was an enormous 
inconvenience to the American taxpaying public who were wondering what 
was going on.

  Having had this failed experience of closing down the executive 
branch of Government, it appears they now want to close down the 
judicial branch of Government. This is the kind of capricious meanness 
that you see in a schoolboy plucking the wings off a fly. This is 
beneath the dignity of the U.S. Senate. This is beneath the dignity of 
being a U.S. Senator. This is beneath the dignity of our Constitution. 
This is wrong. This has never been done. It was never done under the 
leadership of Senator Baker and Senator Dole, under the leadership of 
Senator Mansfield, Senator Byrd, Senator Mitchell, or Senator Daschle. 
I doubt if it was ever done under the leadership of those who came 
before them.
  The Senate is not fulfilling its constitutional responsibility. It is 
interfering with the President's authority to appoint Federal judges. 
It is hampering the third, coequal branch of our Government.
  The Republicans controlling the 104th Congress shut down the 
executive branch, this Congress they seem intent on shutting down the 
judicial branch for political gain. It is a scandal in the making. It 
is high time for the Senate to do its duty to consider and confirm 
judges to the vacancies that have persisted for so long.
  Instead, they bring to the Senate floor this resolution and say, 
``Hey, Mr. President, I hope you enjoy your time in Bethesda. Turn on 
C-SPAN. We're going to stand here and bash you for a day or two or 
three.''
  I suggest this: If you want to do that--if the leadership figures 
that the only thing to do, because they cannot pass a budget, cannot 
ratify a treaty, cannot pass anything else that might significantly 
improve the lives of the American people--if, instead, they want to use 
this Senate to bash the President, could we have maybe an hour every 
day to do the people's business? Maybe an hour a day? For 10 hours, 
they can bash the President and 1 hour each day we could actually 
debate their budget resolution, if they had a budget resolution. For 10 
hours a day, bash the President, an hour a day actually consider and 
confirm Federal judges.
  It is getting a little ridiculous. Do people know that we get paid 
$133,000 a year, and we have not had 1 second of debate on the budget 
resolution that the Republican leadership of the Senate and the House 
are supposed to bring before us for a vote? Do they know that we get 
paid $133,000 a year, but if you want to litigate a case in a Federal 
court, you probably cannot get before a Federal judge because of the 
vacancies that our inaction is perpetuating?
  Do they know how much it is costing to do the bashing per page of the 
Congressional Record? Maybe it is a sort of full-employment opportunity 
for printers. As a printer's son, maybe I ought to be happy, but I do 
not think this is what my father would think was the best thing for 
this body to do.
  So, Mr. President, some of this could be humorous if it were not for 
the enormous cost to the taxpayers, if it were not for the fact that we 
are not doing what we are supposed to do, if it were not for the fact 
that the kind of bipartisanship that has always made me proud to be a 
Member of the U.S. Senate has broken down more than I have ever seen 
before. Maybe it would be funny if so many people were not hurt.
  The Attorney General will look into any issues that there may be at 
the White House. She will report back to us, as she is required to do. 
We can look at that report and we can determine whether we agree with 
it or not. But as a former prosecutor, I must tell you, I find it very 
offensive to tell a prosecutor, ``Here is what you must do and must not 
do. Here are the conclusions you must reach and must not reach.''
  That is basically what this resolution is saying and it is also 
saying: ``Oh, by the way--by the way--there's one thing thou shalt not 
do. Thou shalt not ask any question of a Member of Congress. We, the 
Republicans, who control the majority in the Congress, are saying, thou 
shalt not ask questions of us, what we might have done in 
fundraising.'' I will guarantee you, Mr. President, when we bring up an 
alternative resolution which calls on the Attorney General to look at 
Members of Congress, that in lockstep the Republican majority will vote 
that down. A herd of elephants will trample that into the dust.
  Why is that? They say, go investigate the President. We have already 
spent $30, $40 million investigating the President and found nothing 
that says he has done anything wrong. We have already spent about $30, 
$40 million on a special prosecutor, who also goes out and gives 
speeches to organizations that seek to defeat the President. We spent 
$30, $40 million on a special prosecutor who has clients whose PAC's 
have worked very hard to defeat the President. We spent $30, $40 
million on a special prosecutor who would not recognize a conflict of 
interest if it hit him up alongside the head.
  Now they say, ``Let's just go after the President some more, but, 
please, make sure you understand what we are saying: Don't touch us.'' 
It reminds me of the tax debate where the distinguished former chairman 
of the Finance Committee, and one of the real giants of the Senate, 
Russell Long, in debate said, ``The kind of taxes we want are, don't 
tax me, don't tax thee; tax the man behind the tree.'' Well, in this 
case, my good friends on the Republican side want to hide behind that 
tree and say, ``Investigate everybody on the other side of the tree. 
Don't look at us.''
  I would like to think, Mr. President, this is because all the Members 
who are going to vote against any investigation of the Senate or the 
House, all the Members who want to block that, are as pure as Caesar's 
wife. I would like to follow that analogy, Mr. President, but I could 
not do it with a straight face.
  It is really very blatant what is going on here. The majority does 
not want to have a vote on a budget. The majority does not want to have 
a vote on a chemical weapons treaty. Lord knows, the majority does not 
want to do anything significant in filling the 100 vacancies now 
persisting in the Federal courts. And those vacancies will grow just 
through the normal retirements, deaths, and so forth. But let them 
pound the President.
  Oh, I would not be surprised if at some point in here we will 
probably have a resolution calling for the President's speedy recovery 
from the surgery this afternoon, but they will just pound the heck out 
of him in the meantime.
  You know, Mr. President, I am not sure anybody is fooled by this. If 
it was just a silly partisan exercise, it would be one thing. At most, 
it would be an embarrassment to the U.S. Senate. But it goes beyond 
that. Because now we find that not only--not only--has there been an 
unprecedented attack on the Constitution by blocking Federal judges, 
but now the other shoe has dropped. We have heard from Members in the 
other body that they want the impeachment of judges. If they disagree 
with their decision, they want them impeached.

  I say to my friends on the other side who are calling for 
impeachments, they should take the time--I was going to say to 
``reread'' a history book, but I think that might be presupposing to 
say ``reread'' one--but go and read a history book. And I cannot say 
``reread'' the Constitution, because that also presupposes they read 
it. Read the Constitution.
  This Nation, the greatest democracy that history has ever known, the 
most powerful nation on Earth and still remaining a democracy, is here 
because of the independence of the three branches of Government: The 
legislative, the executive, and the judiciary.
  Mr. President, everywhere I go in this country and throughout the 
world I find such enormous respect for our independent Federal 
judiciary. Look at some of the countries that are seeking democracy. 
One of the biggest problems they have is that they have never had an 
independent judiciary. We pride ourselves on our independent judiciary. 
But for us to say, ``I disagreed with a decision, impeach him,'' it is 
like Alice in Wonderland, the queen saying, ``Off

[[Page S2306]]

with their heads, off with their heads.'' It is that silly.
  There are, after all, appellate courts. I have tried cases. I have 
won some and I have lost some. I have known I could always appeal. That 
is what you do. If a judge rules differently than you like, appeal the 
decision. Do not say ``Oh, we'll impeach them.'' What kind of respect 
do you think there will be for our Federal courts if that could be 
done?
  This makes me think, Mr. President, of those who had billboards out 
``Impeach the Supreme Court'' because the Court ruled against 
segregation. It was wrong then for those who wanted to violate the 
independence of our courts because the courts dared point their finger 
at the sin and the stain of segregation. It was just as wrong then as 
it is today.
  If my friends on the other side persist in destroying the 
independence of our Federal judiciary, what kind of a legacy do they 
leave their children and their children's children?
  My children will live most of their lives in the next century. I 
think to myself every day, what kind of a century will we give to them 
if, after 200 years of building up the greatest democracy history has 
ever known, we start with this piece and this piece, tearing down what 
made it a great democracy, tearing down the Constitution, tearing down 
the independent judiciary, and, yes, Mr. President, tearing down the 
Senate and tearing down the House by our own statements and by our own 
actions? That is wrong.
  Mr. President, before this gets any further out of control, I pray 
that Republicans and Democrats will start coming back together as we 
did under the great leaders with whom I have had a privilege to serve--
Senator Mansfield, Senator Byrd, Senator Mitchell and now Senator 
Daschle, and on the other side, Senator Baker and Senator Dole. These 
were men who were willing to fight for their partisan beliefs but who 
knew that there were some issues where the American people have to be 
heard first and foremost and that we needed to come together.
  I pray that our Members might pause here today--at least let the 
President of the United States go to surgery this afternoon without us 
trying to tear him apart--and ask ourselves, Republicans and Democrats 
alike, what are we doing to the Senate? What are we doing to the House? 
What are we doing to our Federal Judiciary? What are we doing to the 
protection of our Constitution when we say judges should be impeached 
not for high crimes and misdemeanors, as the Constitution speaks of, 
but because we disagree with them?
  If anybody has ever tried cases, and I have tried a lot of cases, you 
will find judges to disagree with. The other side might be delighted. 
The next week the judge may agree with you and the other side is angry. 
That is the way it works. I tried a lot of cases in the appellate court 
and I have tried a lot of cases in trial courts. However, sometimes I 
disagreed with a determination.
  Mr. President, when I began this statement there were no other 
Senators on the floor seeking recognition. I now see my distinguished 
colleague from Rhode Island and will suspend my remarks at this point 
to allow him an opportunity to be heard.
  I do ask unanimous consent that a copy of the March 13 letter to the 
Attorney General that is signed by seven Democrats serving on the 
Senate Judiciary Committee be printed in the Record. It has been quoted 
already today, but out of context, so I feel compelled to include the 
complete letter in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                             United States Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                   Washington, DC, March 13, 1997.
     Hon. Janet Reno,
     Attorney General of the United States.
     U.S. Department of Justice,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Attorney General: We expect that certain 
     Republican members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
     have forwarded to you a letter, purportedly pursuant to 18 
     U.S.C. Sec. 592(g)(1), that you apply for the appointment of 
     an independent counsel to investigate ``possible fundraising 
     improprieties in connection with the 1996 presidential 
     campaign.'' We will leave it to you to evaluate and respond 
     to that letter in accordance with your statutory 
     responsibilities to determine whether grounds to investigate 
     were furnished in that letter. Rather than provide specific 
     information and credible sources the Republican letter 
     appears to us to be a political document that strings 
     together a series of negative inferences, unanswered 
     questions and damning conclusions.
       We, the undersigned members of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary, are concerned about illegal and improper 
     fundraising and spending practices in Federal election 
     campaigns and the need for campaign finance reform. Whereas 
     press accounts and reported allegations of improper 
     fundraising in Federal campaigns undermine public confidence 
     in the integrity of our electoral process, we want to do all 
     that we can to restore public confidence and get to the 
     bottom of such alleged wrongdoing as soon as possible.
       Should you determine that an application for appointment of 
     an independent counsel is appropriate, we request that your 
     application avoid partisanship and include the full scope of 
     fundraising irregularities. The written request from our 
     Republican colleagues focuses entirely on allegations of 
     fundraising irregularities by the 1996 Clinton/Gore 
     Presidential Campaign and by the Clinton Administration, with 
     a primary focus on two areas: first, whether senior White 
     House officials and other Executive Branch officials 
     ``improperly solicited and/or received contributions on 
     federal property''; and second, whether foreign contributions 
     ``were funneled into U.S. election offers to influence U.S. 
     foreign policy.''
       In addition to the areas outlined by our Republican 
     colleagues, we request that you also examine additional 
     items. First, revelations in the press have been rampant 
     about Republican campaign fundraising improprieties, 
     including soliciting contributions on federal government 
     property. Other Republican fundraising activities also raise 
     significant questions about the appearance of conflicts of 
     interest and whether any quid-pro-quo is involved in 
     legislative activities. Additional revelations raise 
     questions about how Republicans have in some instances 
     violated campaign finance laws and in other instances skirted 
     the spirit, if not the letter of the law, by using not-for-
     profit organizations to funnel money for use in campaigns 
     without the reporting requirements and limitations that apply 
     to formal campaign committees. Second, we are concerned about 
     the possibility that foreign governments are seeking to 
     influence our domestic and foreign policy through campaign 
     contributions, including to congressional candidates for 
     federal office.
       We understand that you have already formed a Task Force of 
     experienced prosecutors from within the Public Integrity 
     Section of the Criminal Division to investigate whether 
     criminal conduct took place in 1996 federal election 
     campaigns and that the Task Force is already well underway in 
     its investigation. We further understand that over thirty 
     special agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation have 
     been assigned to work on this investigation. Indeed, the 
     press has reported that this Task Force has already served 
     subpoenas and presented testimony to a grand jury. We 
     appreciate your pressing forward without delay and credit 
     your past statements that you are continuing to evaluate 
     whether you need apply for the appointment of an independent 
     counsel. We also appreciate that appointment of an 
     independent counsel is not always a panacea. We believe that 
     the cost and delay of independent counsels have not always 
     been justified, that they have not been accountable and that 
     the judicial panel responsible for appointing such an 
     independent counsel in these circumstances may well have its 
     own conflict of interest. Most importably, we understand that 
     were you to shift your approach at this point in order to 
     conduct a preliminary investigation under the independent 
     counsel law, you would have no authority to convene grand 
     juries or issue subpoenas. Thus, the work being done by the 
     current Task Force would have to cease abruptly and the 
     matter would go forward with less authority and fewer 
     investigative powers and options.
       The decision to invoke the independent counsel process in a 
     particular matter rests with you and not with the United 
     States Congress or any member or members thereof. You have 
     demonstrated your willingness to invoke the independent 
     counsel law in the past and we have the utmost confidence 
     that you will invoke the law again, if and when the legal 
     standards have been met in a particular matter. These 
     standards are clearly set forth in the independent counsel 
     statute. You must invoke the independent counsel process when 
     there is specific information from a credible source that a 
     crime may have been committed by enumerated ``covered 
     persons'', under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 591(a). You may exercise your 
     discretion to invoke this process when there is specific 
     information from a credible source that a crime may have been 
     committed by any other person and where the Justice 
     Department has a personal, financial or political conflict of 
     interest, under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 591(c)(1); or when there is 
     specific information from a credible source that a crime may 
     have been committed by a member of Congress and where it 
     would be in the public interest to do so, under 28 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 591(c)(2).
       Partisan requests for invocation of the independent counsel 
     process give the appearance of attempting politically to 
     influence a decision by the Attorney General whether to 
     invoke the independent counsel process in a particular 
     matter. To our mind, this will result in further undermining 
     the public confidence's in the integrity of government, the 
     independent counsel process and in the criminal justice 
     system as a whole. Consequently, we urge you to exercise your 
     best

[[Page S2307]]

     professional judgment, without regard to political pressures 
     and in accordance with the standards of the law and the 
     established policies of the Department of Justice, to 
     determine whether the independent counsel process should be 
     invoked, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 591(a) or (c), to 
     investigate allegations of criminal misconduct by any 
     government official, member of Congress or other person in 
     connection with the 1996 federal election campaigns.
       Only this week the Senate authorized the Governmental 
     Affairs Committee to begin its investigation into illegal and 
     improper fundraising activities in the 1996 federal election 
     campaigns. We are sure that you, as well as we, will monitor 
     that investigation and those hearings closely to determine 
     whether grounds for application for the appointment of an 
     independent counsel arise.
       In conclusion, please report back to the Committee, 
     identify the allegations you are presently investigating, and 
     indicate whether you have begun or will begin a preliminary 
     investigation as limited by the independent counsel law, 
     indicate whether you believe these allegations to which we 
     have referred are based on specific information from credible 
     sources, and indicate whether these matters present a 
     conflict of interest with respect to a covered person or, 
     with respect to members of Congress, whether it would be in 
     the public interest to apply for the appointment of an 
     independent counsel. Please also provide your reasons for 
     those determinations. In the event you conduct a preliminary 
     investigation, but do not apply for the appointment of an 
     independent counsel, or apply for an independent counsel, but 
     only with respect to some of the various allegations on which 
     you have received or developed information, please identify 
     all those allegations which in your view do not warrant 
     appointment of an independent counsel, and explain your view 
     whether those allegations warrant further investigation, 
     pertain to a covered individual, present a conflict of 
     interest or with respect to members of Congress, why the 
     public interest is served by proceeding in the manner that 
     you have chosen.
           Sincerely,
     Herb Kohl,
     Patrick J. Leahy,
     Richard J. Durbin,
     Dianne Feinstein,
     Joseph R. Biden, Jr.,
     Edward M. Kennedy,
     Robert Torricelli,
       U.S. Senators.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record, not introduced, but printed in the Record, a copy of a 
joint resolution which is very close to one that will be introduced by 
this side as an amendment during this debate.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, a follows:

                              S.J. Res. --

       Whereas the independent counsel law was created to restore 
     public confidence in the criminal justice system after the 
     abuses of the Watergate scandal;
       Whereas the decision on whether to invoke the independent 
     counsel process in a particular matter rests by 
     constitutional necessity with the Attorney General and not 
     with the United States Congress;
       Whereas the law provides, in section 591(a) of title 28, 
     United States Code, that the Attorney General must invoke the 
     independent counsel process where there is specific 
     information from a credible source that a crime may have been 
     committed by a covered person;
       Whereas the law provides, in section 591(c)(1) of title 28, 
     United States Code, that the Attorney General may invoke the 
     independent counsel process where there is specific 
     information from a credible source that a crime may have been 
     committed by any other person and where the Justice 
     Department has a personal, financial, or political conflict 
     of interest;
       Whereas the law provides, in section 591(c)(2) of title 28, 
     United States Code, that the Attorney General may invoke the 
     independent counsel process where there is specific 
     information from a credible source that a crime may have been 
     committed by a Member of Congress and where it would be in 
     the public interest to do so;
       Whereas the Attorney General has invoked the independent 
     counsel law in the past, and has stated that she will invoke 
     the law again if and when the legal standards have been met 
     in a particular matter;
       Whereas the independent counsel law was never intended to 
     be used in a partisan manner, and such a misuse of the law 
     would damage public confidence in the criminal justice 
     system; and
       Whereas it would be unprecedented and inappropriate for the 
     Congress to cast a vote which would have the appearance of 
     attempting to politically influence a decision by the 
     Attorney General on whether to invoke the independent counsel 
     process in a particular manner: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That it is 
     the sense of the Congress that the Attorney General should 
     exercise her best professional judgment, without regard to 
     political pressures and in accordance with the standards of 
     the law and the established policies of the Department of 
     Justice, to determine whether the independent counsel process 
     should be invoked, pursuant to section 591(a) or (c), to 
     investigate allegations of criminal misconduct by any 
     government official, Member of Congress, or other person in 
     connection with any presidential or congressional election 
     campaign.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the resolution that is before us, and is the 
question of whether or not there ought to be an independent counsel.
  Let me suggest here that there are three or four other items I want 
to talk about later. I am also interested in talking about the 
investigation that will be moving forward now as a result of last 
week's vote; the Federal Election Commission and some idea on a piece 
of legislation I will introduce with regard to that, and then the 
proposed McCain-Feingold legislation. I presume this has been somewhat 
confusing to someone watching this out there, with all these various 
resolutions and debates going on. But they are issues all related to 
the same subject matter.
  Mr. President, let me just briefly say, with regard to the resolution 
before us, as someone who appreciates the role of having a statute 
dealing with independent counsel, I, for one, along with others--and I 
am not alone in this regard--have expressed some reservations and 
concerns about the independent counsel route generally, putting aside 
any specific matters. I was one who voted against establishing an 
independent counsel in the case of former President Bush when there 
were allegations raised involving Iran and Iran-Contra. I felt that 
those motivations were purely political. There were those in my party, 
principally in my party, who pushed a resolution, and I felt it was 
unwarranted. If felt it was politically motivated, and voted against 
it.
  I felt that the independent counsel's Iran-Contra investigation went 
on way too long. It went on for years and cost an incredible amount of 
money.
  So I am leery of this general approach because of how it is self-
sustaining and goes on indefinitely. The passage of the statute was to 
try and do something to take politics out of this a bit, to set some 
very clear guidelines so we would not be involved in partisan debate 
over whether or not there ought to be an independent counsel.
  Obviously, Members are going to express themselves on the issue, and 
I understand that. But with the independent counsel law we tried to 
remove the political debate in deciding these issues. I urge my 
colleagues in this matter to allow the Attorney General to make her 
decision. She is about as independent as any Attorney General we have 
had and certainly has not been intimidated by invoking the independent 
counsel statute in the past, as expressed by the Senator from Vermont.
  I want to express the worrisome feelings I have about this. We have 
seen independent counsel investigations go on way too long. They are 
self-fulfilling. Today, we have the Justice Department, the FBI looking 
at the matter that is the subject of the request that an independent 
counsel become involved.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I today join the majority of members of the 
Judiciary Committee in calling on the Attorney General to begin the 
process for the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate 
possible violations of Federal law in connection with fundraising and 
other activities during the 1996 Presidential election campaign.
  The independent counsel statute--28 United States Code section 591 
and following--provides that the Attorney General shall conduct a 
preliminary investigation, which is defined as ``such matters as the 
Attorney General considers appropriate in order to make a 
determination, whether further investigation is warranted, with respect 
to each potential violation, or allegation of a violation, of criminal 
law, when she receives information sufficient to constitute grounds to 
investigate'' whether certain persons violated any Federal criminal law 
other than a class B or C misdemeanor. These persons include:
  First, President and Vice President;
  Second, persons working in the Executive Office of the President paid 
at or above level II;
  Third, chairman and treasurer of the President's reelection 
committee, or any officer of the reelection committee exercising 
authority at the national level during the President's term.

[[Page S2308]]

  The test of the sufficiency of the information received is whether or 
not it is specific and credible. The Attorney General has 30 days to 
review this information to make the determination. This is a very low 
threshold test. The only way she can avoid a preliminary investigation 
is to determine that the information is not credible or not specific. 
If she finds she is unable to determine within 30 days if the 
information is credible and specific, she still has to begin the 
investigation.
  Further, if the Attorney General determines that an investigation or 
prosecution by the Department of Justice of any other person may result 
in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest, the 
Attorney General may conduct a preliminary investigation. Although this 
would seem to be more discretionary than the shall language otherwise 
in the statute, Attorney General Reno understands the importance and 
the necessity of the independence of the investigation into such 
matters. As she testified before the Judiciary Committee in 1993 when 
that committee was considering reenactment of the independent counsel 
statute:

       There is an inherent conflict of interest whenever senior 
     Executive Branch officials are to be investigated by the 
     Department of Justice and its appointed head, the Attorney 
     General. The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the 
     President. Recognition of this conflict does not belittle or 
     demean the impressive professionalism of the Department's 
     career prosecutors, nor does it question the integrity of the 
     Attorney General and his or her political appointees. 
     Instead, it recognizes the importance of public confidence 
     in our system of justice, and the destructive effect in a 
     free democracy of public cynicism.''

  She further testified:

       It is absolutely essential for the public to have 
     confidence in the system and you cannot do that when there is 
     conflict or an appearance of conflict in the person who is, 
     in effect, the chief prosecutor . . . The Independent Counsel 
     Act was designed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety 
     in the consideration of allegations of misconduct by high-
     level Executive Branch officials and to prevent . . . the 
     actual or perceived conflicts of interest. The Act thus 
     served as a vehicle to further the public's perception of 
     fairness and thoroughness in such matters, and to avert even 
     the most subtle influences that may appear in an 
     investigation of highly-placed Executive officials.

  Despite the fact that high-level executive department officials and 
other covered persons have been implicated in possible violations of 
Federal law, the Attorney General seems to have ignored her own 
warnings about the appearance of a conflict of interest or impropriety 
and has chosen not to initiate the procedure leading to the appointment 
on her own. In light of this decision, it is left to the Senate, 
through the action of its Judiciary Committee, to pursue the 
appointment of an independent counsel.
  This action has been initiated by written request to the Attorney 
General. Under the independent counsel statute, the Attorney General 
has 30 days after receipt of the request to report if the preliminary 
investigation has begun--and the date it began--or that it will not 
begin. She must give her reasons for either beginning or choosing not 
to begin the investigation.
  I am confident that Attorney General Reno will heed her own words in 
her testimony before the Judiciary Committee and seek to avoid even the 
appearance of impropriety in this investigation.
  There is sufficient specific and credible evidence now to initiate 
the process now. To do otherwise or to delay action will call the 
Attorney General's decisionmaking process into question. That is 
specifically the effect that must be avoided here. There should be no 
appearance of impropriety in the decision of whether to appoint an 
independent counsel and I am confident, upon consideration, the 
Attorney General will see the wisdom in expediting the decision to ask 
for the appointment of such independent counsel.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, there are two items I will address this 
morning. I will not be long. I know the distinguished Senator from 
Rhode Island is waiting to speak.

                          ____________________