[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 34 (Monday, March 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2344-S2350]
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
resume consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 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 resumed consideration of the joint resolution.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week there was an attempt made, I
think, on the part of some--not all, but on the part of some--a serious
attempt made in the Judiciary Committee to put together a bipartisan
letter to the Attorney General regarding what should be done on the
question of an independent counsel and some of the campaign fundraising
issues. Unfortunately, it ended up being a partisan matter and the
Republican majority, as is their right, sent a highly partisan letter
asking immediately for an independent counsel.
Most of us on the other side sent a letter, which I signed as ranking
member, along with other Democratic members, asking basically that we
follow the law and we go through the various steps required on the
issue of independent counsel: That we do not bring political pressure
on the Attorney General to act one way or the other, recognizing that
the reason for the independent counsel law was to shield the process
and the Attorney General from political pressure or posturing.
In this regard, I would like to draw the attention of the Senate to
the lead editorial in yesterday's Washington Post. The Post has been in
the forefront of those investigative journalists who have been working
on stories about many aspects of fundraising that has been taking
place, and is taking place, to finance Federal elections--both
fundraising by the Republican Party and by the Democratic Party.
Certainly, the Post has not been shy about criticizing Republicans or
Democrats, in the Congress or out, with regard to campaign fundraising.
It is interesting to read their editorial because, basically, they
take the same position as we had taken on the Democratic side of the
Senate Judiciary Committee. They speak of all the reasons to wait and
follow the law itself, as she is now doing, and to have the Attorney
General make her own determination. It ends by saying this:
There is one other major factor that argues for waiting
awhile before deciding whether to seek an independent counsel
in the campaign finance case. It has to do with what we
believe to be the integrity and, if you will, independence of
this attorney general herself. She is an uncommon figure in
this town, and this administration, as even many who are
banging on the table for an independent prosecutor will
agree. We do not think it would be an inducement to sleeping
well at night to know she was on your case if you had
violated the law and were trying to hide it--especially with
her honor being publicly challenged over and over again on
this matter.
You balance risks in a decision like this. The risk of
leaving the case in her hands at this stage, while Justice
Department, congressional and other investigators continue to
try to flesh it out, seems pretty slim. Events could change
that. But right now the matter seems to us to be proceeding
well enough without an independent counsel.
I ask unanimous consent the entire editorial be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Mar. 16, 1997]
The Independent Counsel Issue
Attorney general Janet Reno says the conditions that would
require the naming of an independent counsel in the case of
the fund-raising for the president's reelection campaign have
yet to be met. She's taking a lot of heat for that. Critics
accuse her of trying to protect the president. Congressional
Republicans, some Democrats and all manner of other
commentators say if ever a case carried out for an
independent prosecutor, it is this one. We aren't so sure.
Anything could turn up tomorrow. But on the basis of what is
known today, an argument can be made that Ms. Reno is right.
We say that as strong supporters of the independent counsel
statute, though in some instances we have thought past
counsels carried on too long or went too far. We say it also
as a frequent critic of both the administration and the
rotten system of campaign finance, whose corrupting qualities
the president did so much to confirm last year. The fund-
raising practices, some of them, in which he, the vice
president and their adherents indulged were shabby, heavy-
handed, demeaning, unseemly, questionable, destructive of
public confidence and pretty close to the edge. But it isn't
clear they were illegal. That, in fact, is the problem. The
law is at least elliptical; not enough of what ought to be
illegal is.
The virtue of the independent counsel act is that it
reduces the conflict of interest that inevitably arises when
an administration is called upon to investigate its own
behavior. But it is not meant to avert mere awkwardness; it
comes into play in only certain instances. The attorney
general must seek appointment of an independent counsel (by
the special court created to do so) when confronted with
specific, credible evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the
president, vice president, Cabinet officials and certain
others in the executive branch, including a limited number of
senior White House aides. She also may seek appointment of a
counsel when confronted with evidence of such conduct by a
lesser official where she feels there is a conflict.
The evidence of such conduct in this case thus far is a lot
more limited than the churning surrounding the case would
suggest. A lot of pretty squalid stuff was done. But so far
as we know, no specific, credible evidence exists that, say,
an official covered by the act sold a particular piece of
policy for a campaign contribution, or knowingly accepted
money from a forbidden source. You could make the generic
charge against both presidential campaigns that they violated
and pretty well trashed the campaign finance laws, including
their criminal provisions, by raising so much so-called soft
money in excess of federal limits. They pretended it wasn't
campaign money when it
[[Page S2345]]
clearly was. But no one is talking about that in this case,
least of all the congressional Republicans who want an
independent counsel but oppose most regulation of campaign
finance. There are charges that funds were illegally
raised (by the vice president, for one) and received
inside a federal building--the very White House itself--
instead of in some other building down the street, but you
can find any number of lawyers who will say on one basis
or another that what was done was not illegal, and does
anyone really want to name an independent counsel to
conduct a criminal prosecution of the vice president for
making a phone call from the wrong room? That isn't what
this is about, either.
More serious charges have been leveled against some lesser
figures in the drama--that they laundered money from foreign
sources, sought favors in return for contributions, etc. Ms.
Reno has set up a task force to investigate these. As a
practical matter, what the task force appears to have been
conducting is precisely the kind of preliminary inquiry,
though by another name, that would be required if the
independent counsel statute were invoked, the question being,
what evidence is there that criminal conduct occurred? If
such conduct is found, and found to be of a kind that
requires the naming of an independent counsel, Ms. Reno may
yet ask for one. In a sense, what's going on is what the
critics claim to want, but without the label.
Meanwhile, the independent counsel already investigating
the president in the Whitewater case, Kenneth Starr, is also
looking into what you might call one of the most advanced
aspects of the campaign finance case, which is whether
political donors were somehow called upon to hire Clinton
family friend and former associate attorney general Webster
Hubbell before he went to prison several years ago, the
question being whether the large amounts of money paid him as
Mr. Starr was seeking information from him were meant to hush
him up.
There is one other major factor that argues for waiting
awhile before deciding whether to seek an independent counsel
in the campaign finance case. It has to do with what we
believe to be the integrity and, if you will, independence of
this attorney general herself. She is an uncommon figure in
this town, and this administration, as even many who are
banging on the table for an independent prosecutor will
agree. We do not think it would be an inducement to sleeping
well at night to know she was on your case if you had
violated the law and were trying to hide it--especially with
her honor being publicly challenged over and over again on
this matter.
You balance risks on a decision like this. The risk of
leaving the case in her hands at this stage, while Justice
Department, congressional and other investigators continue to
try to flesh it out, seems pretty slim. Events could change
that. But right now the matter seems to us to be proceeding
well enough without an independent counsel.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I sometimes think that those who are
scheming for an independent counsel for this and an independent counsel
for that, counsel that often cost $20 or $30 million of the taxpayers'
money, and millions of dollars more of individuals' money, have not
bothered to stop and think what they are asking for. It may be good for
the evening news and may make a Member of the House or Member of the
Senate feel good because his or her name gets in the paper, but does it
really help this country?
In fact, some might ask about this rush to come on the floor Friday,
the steady stream of my friends on the Republican side of the aisle who
blast the President and tear after the President. I am surprised they
did not say, ``Why don't we double-check with Bethesda as to what time
he will actually be in surgery so maybe we could go on recess or go to
our own fundraisers at that time and then come back and make sure he
sees just how we are tearing him apart.''
I suggested half joking on Friday that they would set aside another
$1 million that we could appropriate of the taxpayers' money to send a
delegation of Members up to Bethesda to make sure, indeed, he was being
operated on. It was about that ridiculous.
I first came to the Senate at a time when Democrats and Republicans
showed some respect for whoever was holding the office of President of
the United States and had some realization that the person serving as
President, like the rest of us, is a human being and an individual.
Yet, I have heard Members on this floor pillory the President, pillory
his wife, his child, even at times his mother and others, as though
somehow they don't have feelings. I have heard things said about him
that, if we said them about each other, we could be censured by the
Senate--even though some of the things said may be more applicable to
some in this body.
I remember a time, a time when the Democrats were in the majority,
since I have been here, when an issue was coming up, for example, about
President Ford on personal issues. We held off--maybe he was taking a
trip abroad--and we held off on issues.
The same with President Reagan. Again, when the Democrats were in the
majority in the Senate, we would hold off issues of criticism of the
President as he was about to leave to go abroad.
The same with President Bush.
Yet, here we have the President of the United States, who has just
undergone what I have to imagine is extremely painful surgery--the
Presiding Officer would be able to understand that better than I
because of his own distinguished medical background. I think by all
accounts it was a very painful situation. They tell me tearing a tendon
is more painful than breaking your leg. I know, from some of my
colleagues here who have torn Achilles tendons, or others, have told me
that is so.
Here he is, the President of the United States, undergoing very
painful surgery. But notwithstanding the pain he must be in, because of
the importance of the relationship between the United States and the
world's other major nuclear power, Russia, he is going forward with his
summit meeting with President Yeltsin. The President, who is going to
be traveling very painfully to Helsinki--whether it is Air Force One or
not. I have ridden enough times on Air Force One with various
Presidents to know Air Force One can hit turbulence, too, and bounce
you all around. It will be a painful trip.
None of this seems to make any difference. They still proceed on the
floor, Friday and today, blasting the President with resolutions and
statements. This timing ensures, of course, that all this will be in
the world's press, in Helsinki and elsewhere, just in time to be
delivered to all those in the Russian party when he arrives.
Mr. President, I don't know if the Senate is just spinning out of
control without any sense of propriety or decorum. Perhaps, at the age
of 56, I have become the old-fashioned Member of the Senate. But I have
been here for 22 years, and whether it was in my first year as a 34-
year-old former prosecutor or now as a 56-year-old senior Member of the
Senate, I do know that we have followed a tradition of some propriety
in this body.
We have done that time and time again. We have withheld resolutions,
questions or disapproval of a President when he was leaving to go
abroad or was abroad so we could at least present a united face to the
rest of the world.
Yet, I have heard Members come on the floor and make highly critical
statements of President Clinton when he has been at summit meetings
overseas, statements that had to be read by all the people with him
from around the world. That, I think, was unseemly. Just as I believe
having this resolution at this time at the beginning of the Helsinki
summit is highly insulting, shows no sense on the part of the U.S.
Senate and, frankly, of those who brought it forward at this time, of
the kind of image we should give the rest of the world.
I am not suggesting by any means that we cannot question the
President of the United States. I have done it, other Members have done
it, both this President and other Presidents. That is perfectly
appropriate under our separation of powers and under our duties as
Members of the Senate.
But I suggest that there are certain times when, by tradition--and a
tradition that has served this country very well--that we at least back
off and show some unity. One such time, just out of a sense of common
decency and perhaps upbringing, would be when the President is in the
hospital recuperating from a fairly painful and serious injury. One
would think that we would not see this happening in the U.S. Senate. I
question what we are coming to.
But by tradition, by a sense of propriety, and by a sense of Senators
putting their country ahead of their political partisan posturing, we
have at least held off at the beginning of a foreign trip by a
President or at the beginning of a summit.
Mr. President, I was thinking of this matter this morning as I was
coming to work. Comments were made to me over the weekend while I was
home in Vermont by a number of people who are not Democrats, who
thought that it was unseemly. I have not talked with anyone at the
White House about this
[[Page S2346]]
or anybody in my leadership or anybody in my office. This is simply
something I started thinking about. It bothers me that we have reached
the point where we are not showing the sense of history in this body
that has served the Senate very well in the past, and has also served
the country well.
I urge those who determine the timing of issues before the Senate to
take some time during the Senate recess and read a history of the
Senate and read a history of the actions of the great leaders of the
Senate, Republican and Democrat alike--and we have had great leaders in
both parties. Read about the number of times when they have put the
United States ahead of their own partisan fortunes, when they have put
the United States ahead of their own ability to be in the news, and,
frankly, when they realized that the U.S. Senate can be and should be
the conscience of the Nation. We should uphold that conscience of the
Senate so that the Senate can be the conscience of the Nation.
With some in this body, it will be a rereading of the history of the
Senate. Frankly, Mr. President, one has to assume that for some, it
will be a reading of the history of the Senate, and that perhaps in all
their efforts to get here, the time-consuming and difficult chore that
is, they did not have a chance to read the history of the U.S. Senate
before they arrived. But now is as good a time as any. There is going
to be a 2-week recess, and that should allow some time to read it.
Senators cannot be at fundraisers all of the time during that recess.
Read over the history.
I urge the leaders, those who determine the schedule of this place,
that in the future, when the President is about to embark on a major
summit, in this case with the other major nuclear power of the world,
that they not bring up resolutions designed to embarrass him, designed
actually to be voted on the day that he would arrive. As it turns out,
it won't be, because he is delayed by a day because of his injury.
We are not playing school-board politics here. We are not some small-
town board. This is the U.S. Senate. There are only 100 of us who get
the opportunity to serve at any one time, but we represent a quarter of
a billion people in the greatest, most powerful democracy history has
ever known. I think we all know that. It doesn't matter whether we are
Republican, Democrat; conservative, liberal, moderate; no matter what
part of this country we are from; we know, instinctively, that we
represent the greatest democracy history has shown.
But instinctively knowing and diligently upholding the responsibility
of U.S. Senators to represent that Nation are two different things. If
Members want to criticize the President, that is their right. If they
want to embark on another investigation, like the rather pointless one
the Senate already has, Whitewater--pointless, except for the fact it
cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars--fine, they have a
right to do that. But at least let's make an effort to present a united
face when the President of the United States goes abroad on a major
summit. At least give the President of the United States as much
backing as possible when he is representing all the United States--not
Democrats, not Republicans--all the United States.
I am reminded of a story my father had told me many times about my
State, which for many years was the most Republican State in this
country. In fact, after 22 years as a U.S. Senator from Vermont, I am
still the only member of my party ever to represent Vermont in the U.S.
Senate. In fact, we are the only State in the Union that has only
elected one Democratic Senator, and I am it. Sorry about that, Mr.
President, but it happens.
My father told me how the National Life Insurance Co. in the thirties
and forties, basically ran the Republican Party in Vermont. They
determined every 2 years who was going to be Governor. You had to be
very much a Republican.
In the late thirties--I believe it was 1937--Franklin Roosevelt came
to Vermont to look at some flood control projects. He was driving down
State Street in Montpelier, past our statehouse and past the National
Life Insurance building--they were two separate buildings, although it
was sometimes hard to tell which was which--in an open car. My father,
the lone Democrat in Montpelier, was standing there, as chance would
have it, next to the president of National Life who was then the de
facto chairman of the Vermont Republican Party. As the open car went by
with Franklin Roosevelt in it, the men all stood at attention and the
president of National Life, like all the other men, took his hat off--
they all wore hats then--and held it over his heart as President
Roosevelt drove by. My father could not resist the temptation to chide
him a little bit then, and he said, ``I can't believe you took your hat
off for Franklin Roosevelt.'' The president of National Life replied,
``Howard, I didn't take my hat off for Franklin Roosevelt. I took my
hat off for the President of the United States.''
What he did was show respect. Respect does not have to be blind. It
does not mean we do not question things here. We have great respect on
the Democratic side of the aisle for the Republican leadership, just as
I would hope they would for the Democratic leadership. But it does not
mean we vote with them all the time, by any means. There is a
difference.
We show respect in this body, just following Jefferson's Manual, by
the way we address each other. It does not mean we agree. We might be
fighting hammer and tong, but we say ``my distinguished colleague,''
and so on and so forth.
We should show respect to the President of the United States when he
is going abroad to represent every single American. We are the only
country left on Earth that still does have the ability to destroy the
world overnight with nuclear power.
Every one of us on this floor, especially every Democrat on this
floor, always showed that respect for President Reagan when he was in
similar situations, and for President Bush.
I see the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts on the
floor. He has served here longer than all but a couple of Members. I
think the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is one who would
well remember both Republican and Democratic members of the Senate and
the House showed some restraint and unity with them.
This resolution could easily be brought up after the President came
back, or any other time. There is absolutely no urgency to bring it up
now. But it is brought up on the eve of his trip to Helsinki to have a
summit meeting with the President of Russia.
Mr. President, frankly, in my estimation, this is a new low for the
U.S. Senate. In my estimation, this is something I have never seen
happen here before. In my estimation, those who determined to bring
this resolution up at the beginning of the Helsinki summit ought to be
ashamed of themselves. They ought to admit they are ashamed of
themselves and put it off for another time.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. 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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to support the
Democratic alternative, and to reject this one-sided, partisan, and
unseemly attempt to force the Attorney General to act.
On the issue of the independent counsel, last week, the Senate voted
unanimously to give the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee a broad
mandate to investigate campaign violations in all Federal elections,
whether by Democrats or Republicans.
Our able and trusted Attorney General, Janet Reno, already has a task
force in full operation investigating these issues. More than 30
special agents from the FBI serve on this task force. The task force
has already issued subpoenas and presented testimony before a grand
jury.
Last Thursday, Republican members of the Judiciary Committee wrote to
the Attorney General urging her to seek an independent counsel. That
letter requires the Attorney General to examine whether an independent
counsel should be appointed and to report to the Judiciary Committee on
the actions that she takes.
The Republican resolution now before us proves that Republicans are
not
[[Page S2347]]
serious about conducting an evenhanded inquiry into campaign finance
violations. It focuses only on the Presidential campaign and ignores
the many allegations of serious abuse in Republican congressional
races.
We faced similar partisan tactics in the debate last week on the
Governmental Affairs Committee's investigation. Democrats called for a
broad inquiry covering both illegal and improper activities and
including both Presidential and congressional campaigns. But the Senate
Republican leadership resisted. They were only interested in putting
the spotlight on the White House and diverting attention from abuses by
Republicans in Congress.
In the end, their efforts to suppress a responsible inquiry could not
stand the light of day. Republicans joined Democrats in voting
unanimously in favor of the Democratic position that the Governmental
Affairs Committee should investigate all campaign abuses--Presidential
and congressional, Republican and Democrat.
Why don't we hear Republicans calling for an inquiry into the role of
money in last year's fight to raise the minimum wage? The majority of
Americans supported an increase in the minimum wage to enable American
workers to support their families. But money from special business
interests was rolling into Republican campaigns as corporations tried
to block this long-overdue raise for working Americans. When an
increase in the minimum wage became inevitable, Republicans added
provisions giving huge tax breaks to business as a consolation prize.
Why don't we hear Republicans demanding an investigation of the role
of money in last year's fight over medical savings accounts? The MSA
proposal threatened to block the whole Kassebaum-Kennedy health care
bill. The Golden Rule Insurance Co., was the driving force behind
medical savings accounts. Golden Rule made more than $1 million in
campaign contributions. In October 1994 alone, just before the midterm
election, it delivered $416,000 in soft money to the GOP. Only two
other companies gave more to the Republicans in that election cycle.
Golden Rule contributed lavishly to Newt Gingrich's GOPAC political
action fund. Without Golden Rule and its huge contributions to
Republicans, medical savings accounts would never have been an issue.
Republicans were willing to jeopardize health care for working families
in order to channel higher profits to insurance companies.
But what about the Republican regulatory reform proposals in the last
Congress? Utility lawyers in a Richmond, VA, law firm are reported to
have drafted the Dole bill in the last Congress--the same law firm in
which Senator Dole's counsel and chief aide on that bill had been
employed only weeks before. That firm represented utility companies,
chemical companies, and tobacco companies all seeking to increase their
profits by weakening regulations requiring companies to keep our food
safe and our environment and water clean.
In fact, when the time came to inform Democrats about the Republican
bill, the briefing was not conducted by Republican staff, but by three
lawyers from the law firm.
So if Republicans are serious, these offensive actions that
jeopardized the health and well-being of millions of Americans would be
on the list for investigation, too.
Surely, if there is to be an investigation by an independent counsel,
these abuses should be within the scope of the investigation, too.
President Clinton and Democrats in Congress are talking about better
education and health care for children, good jobs for working
Americans, protections for the environment, saving Social Security and
Medicare while balancing the budget, preventing crime, and reforming
the current shameful system of campaign financing. Our Republican
friends are interested in none of the above. They are shamefully
abdicating their responsibility to prepare a congressional budget
resolution. They are stonewalling any campaign finance reform. They are
more interested in investigating who slept in the Lincoln Bedroom than
addressing the issues that keep working families sleepless at night.
Attorney General Reno doesn't need this kind of partisan advice to do
her job and decide whether to appoint an independent counsel. Our
Democratic alternative calls on the Attorney General, in determining
whether an independent counsel is necessary, to ``exercise her best
professional judgment, without regard to political pressures and in
accordance with the standards of the law.'' It is the responsible thing
to do.
Attorney General Reno has earned broad bipartisan respect for her
honesty and integrity. Congress should not pressure her to suspend the
current Justice Department investigation and turn it over to an
independent counsel. We certainly should not pressure her to seek an
independent counsel whose mandate would conveniently ignore the obvious
abuses of Republican congressional campaign financing.
I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic alternative and to
oppose the Republican resolution.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I said earlier that I have never seen a
time in my 22 years here when those who control the majority of the
Senate would schedule a resolution of this nature as a President was
leaving for a summit meeting--even some of the less significant
summits, and certainly not for a summit with the leader of a nation
that is, militarily, a nuclear superpower.
I can think of a number of times when there were issues that were as
troublesome to Democrats, who had controlled the majority of the
Senate, as this is to Republicans, or as they say it is--so long as it
is limited just to investigate the Democratic President and not
themselves. There were times when I was here in the majority with
Republican Presidents, including President Ford, President Reagan, and
President Bush, and time and time again we held off matters that we
were thinking of bringing to the floor, even legislation, that might be
a matter of some contention while the President was abroad at a summit
meeting. At no time would even the most junior member of the Democratic
Party, when the Democrats were in the majority, consider bringing up
something like this while a Republican President was abroad.
I think it shows one of the most egregious breakdowns of any
bipartisan comity in this body, to see this come up as the President is
about to go to Helsinki. I think certainly in my 22 years of
experience, it is completely unprecedented. I think it is outrageous. I
think it is inexcusable. It does not mean that this whole issue could
not be debated when the President came back. It might mean that we
would have to delay our 2-week vacation by a couple of days to do it.
But we might present a better face to the rest of the world.
It has become so partisan around here that we look first to partisan
advantage and not for the advantage of the country. Some in Congress
simply cannot avoid the temptation to jump the gun and demand another
costly, time-consuming, largely unaccountable, potentially destructive
independent counsel--provided it is only to investigate a Democratic
President. Certainly, there is no effort to go and look at any
activities of the Republican Party.
Senate Joint Resolution 22 does not advance the administration of
justice. It was drafted and introduced before the Republican and
Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and those of the
House Judiciary Committee sent letters to the Attorney General. Those
letters are congressional actions contemplated by the independent
counsel law. This resolution is not and does not take those actions
into account. We have begun a process that will yield the reports from
the Attorney General that are allowed by the statute. We ought to give
that process a chance to work.
This resolution, if it was a law, would probably be found
unconstitutional. It certainly is not authorized by the independent
counsel law. In my view, it is
[[Page S2348]]
an inappropriate effort to pressure the Attorney General and to
prejudge these matters. One of the main reasons this kind of a
resolution is not contemplated in the law is to keep political and
partisan pressure off the Attorney General. It perverts the independent
counsel process.
The independent counsel law was passed to ensure that investigative
and prosecutorial decisions are made without regard to political
pressures. This resolution would subvert that purpose by subjecting the
critical initial decisions about invoking the law to such political
pressures.
It is not Congress' place to determine when to bring criminal
charges. 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.
The resolution of the distinguished Republican leader will serve only
to undermine the investigation that the Attorney General now has
underway and will undercut the independent counsel law. It will further
erode public confidence in the Government's ability to do its job.
We ought to do our job up here and let the Attorney General do hers.
We are having a hard enough time doing our own job. We have yet to see
1 minute of debate on the budget resolution which has to be passed by
mid-April. We have not seen one single judge get confirmed. We have
been voting them out of the committee at the rate of three-quarters of
a judge a month, and none has come to the floor, not in 6, 7, or 8
months, and there are 100 vacancies in our Federal judiciary. The Chief
Justice calls it a crisis. Yet, even though we are paid and elected to
do that, to consider and confirm judges, we have not confirmed a single
judge. We have not brought up the budget. We have a chemical weapons
treaty which is languishing.
But we can break all precedent and bring up a resolution attacking
the President as he leaves on a summit with the President of Russia,
the other nuclear superpower, something that has never been done
before, something that any Democrat, when we have been in the majority
and leading this body, would have been ashamed to do to a Republican
President because we know it was so much against the best interests of
the United States. Even though it might further our own short-term
political gains, we would not want to damage the United States, the
President's credibility or the President's ability to represent the
United States abroad, so we would not have done it and did not do it.
There are a lot of issues the Senate could be considering that are
within our responsibilities, do reflect our duties in this Government
and do reflect what is in the best interests of the country. This is
not one of them. It is an affront to the constitutional separation of
powers established by the Founders. Investigation and prosecution of
crimes is left to those experienced in the use of that awesome power,
not matters for a political body.
When I was a prosecutor, I knew as a prosecutor I had the power to
bring or to withhold prosecution. It was not anything I was willing to
share with any legislative body. I hoped I would resist that temptation
if I were ever a legislator and not a prosecutor.
It makes as little sense as the call by some in the Republican Party
for the Congress to be able to overturn any judicial decision of any
Federal court by just a majority vote. This concept would have been
laughed down by the Founders of our country. They wanted three
independent branches of Government: The executive branch, the
legislative branch, and the judicial branch. Government 101--in most
schools, you learn it in the first or second grade.
What they are now saying, even though part of the strength of our
democracy and the protection of our democracy is an independent Federal
judiciary, even though we have a Federal judiciary that is the envy of
all other countries because of the quality of the men and women in it
and their integrity and their independence, we now have some who say,
``Well, cut out the independence, we will have the Congress stand up
and vote to decide whether a decision is right or wrong in a court. We
will just overturn it. We will become a super court of appeals.''
As though we don't have enough to do. We can't bring up a budget. The
chemical weapons treaty isn't before us either to be voted up or down.
We haven't even found time to vote to confirm 1 single judge when there
are 100 vacancies in the Federal courts. But somehow we are going to
have time to start reading judicial opinions and decide whether to vote
to overturn them? I wonder how many judicial opinions most Members of
this body have read since they have been here. I wonder how many are
prepared to sit down and read the thousands delivered every year. This
is balderdash of the first order.
Then, yes, the other thing they are going to do, there are now
Members in the other body who suggest that if we don't like a decision,
impeach the judge. Now, some who were saying that, I will grant you,
have read--I have suggested that some don't read enough in this body--
but some of those who say ``just impeach the judge'' when we disagree,
they have at least read something. Unfortunately, they read Lewis
Carroll's ``Alice in Wonderland'' and got stuck in the part where the
queen says, ``Off with their heads.'' Every time the queen disagrees
with something, ``Off with their heads.''
Well, we are a gentler and kinder nation, so some say, ``I disagree,
impeach him, impeach him.'' My goodness, it sounds like the chipmunk
chorus, like we hear in some of the songs at Christmas time.
This country was made by giants. Let us not have it torn down by
pygmies. Let us respect our three branches of Government. Let us
respect the independence of our judiciary. Mr. President, I have tried
a lot of cases. Some I won; some I lost. But if I lost them and felt
the case wrongly decided, I would appeal them. If somebody on the other
side lost, they could appeal. That is what you do. I can imagine the
hoots if somebody in one of these cases who lost, immediately said that
we have to impeach the judge. We have appellate courts--appeal it. What
are you going to do if you disagree with the appellate courts? Are you
going to impeach them? Suppose they are upheld by the U.S. Supreme
Court. I can see a delegation of us going right out that door, Mr.
President, straight across the street with our torches held high, our
pitchforks brandished, our tumbrels ``tumbreling''--the reporter of
debates will have fun with that one--saying, ``We are here to impeach
the Supreme Court, you naughty boys and girls. You voted differently
than we think you should have.''
You know, I was reminded today of the first time that I saw a
billboard to impeach the Supreme Court was when I was 18. I made my
first trip down here. Some were upset that the Supreme Court didn't
want to uphold segregation, so ``impeach the Supreme Court'' was their
slogan. How laughable, in hindsight. How acceptable is the repeal of
our segregation laws today. How laughable, in retrospect, were those
billboards of that time. But at the time they were popular with a
group. They were popular with a segment of the political society, and
so that was why the billboards were there.
Well, I have no question in my mind that it may be popular today for
some to say ``impeach judges'' when we disagree with them--but not for
the high crimes and misdemeanors the Constitution speaks of, not for
the only ground the Constitution allows for impeachment, but simply
because we disagree with their decision. It may be popular with some.
In retrospect, it will be seen as laughable.
But at the moment it is dangerous. It is dangerous, Mr. President,
because a democracy exists only if we have respect for the institutions
of a democracy. A democracy exists only if we follow our traditions and
our laws and our best instincts. This does none of that. It doesn't
follow tradition, and it doesn't follow any laws or our best instincts.
Most importantly, it does not follow the Constitution, the remarkable
instrument that has maintained this Nation for over 200 years. It has
turned us into the most respected, most powerful democracy known to
history.
I urge all Senators, all House Members, all of us who have the
responsibility, who have taken the oath to uphold the Constitution, to
step back a moment, stop the foolishness of these calls for
impeachment, stop the irresponsibility of refusing to fill judicial
[[Page S2349]]
vacancies, stop the attacks on the President as he moves from his
hospital bed to one of the most important summits he will have of his
Presidency.
This does not mean we cannot criticize. Everybody is free to vote for
or against any proposal of the President. Any one of us is free to vote
for or against any amendment of mine or anybody else's.
But what we are not free to do is, for short-term political gain, is
tear down the best things that make this country run. We are not free
to tear down the Constitution on issues of judicial appointments or
independence just because it may sound good in a speech back home or to
a fundraising group. We are not free to try to design the timing of
resolutions to embarrass a President when he is about to go into a
major summit.
Frankly, I will put my money on the President handling that summit
with all of the issues involved, from the democracy movements within
the former Soviet Union to our own nuclear security. Maybe the
President is better off to have some in this body distracted by voting
on this, rather than thinking of other things they could do to try to
meddle into the foreign policy leadership of the President.
Mr. President, I suggest that this extreme partisanship--and that is
what it is--is something I have never seen in my time in the Senate,
and it is time that we back off. It does not help the Senate. If
somebody wants to state a selfish reason, it won't help any one of us
either. Most importantly, it doesn't help the country. I have always
believed that all the men and women in here are true patriots who have,
or should have, the interests of the country first and foremost above
their own political well-being or the political well-being of any
special interest group on the left or the right.
Maybe they want to back off. Maybe it might be good that some would
acknowledge that they picked a poor time to bring this up, that it
really does jump the gun. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt
that it might even have been a mistake to bring it up now. I realize
the possibility is very, very slim but I will even accept the
possibility that it might not even have been brought up with the
intention of embarrassing the President. I assume it was. But I will
accept even the possibility.
I ask the same question that so many others have asked me: Why in
Heaven's name? What have we come to that we try to send the President
to a summit to represent everyone of us but knowing all the headlines
will be ``Senate Debating Resolution to Investigate the President of
the United States?'' We know that for some this is being done for
short-term political gain for upcoming fundraising or fundraising
letters. But the people who read the headlines in the newspapers around
the world do not, and certainly those who will be at the summit do not.
So I think it is a mistake. We ought to get on to other things.
antipersonnel landmines
In fact, I could suggest one thing that we could go to, something on
which Democrats and Republicans could join is the question of
antipersonnel landmines. Today there are over 100 million antipersonnel
landmines buried in the ground in around 70 countries. Some of them are
as small as a can of shoe polish.
Every few minutes somebody is killed, maimed, or injured from these
antipersonnel landmines. Invariably the person killed, maimed, or
injured is a civilian. The injuries tend to go almost in an inverse
ratio to the age of the person. Some are children who are killed, or
hopelessly crippled for life. In one country, I was told by their
leaders that they cleared their landmines ``an arm and a leg at a
time.''
This Senate has supported legislation on antipersonnel landmines that
I have written, the Leahy ban on the export of landmines. That was
something, in a rare show of unity, where Republicans and Democrats
across the political spectrum came together and the United States has
been able to take the high road of banning the export of landmines as a
result. In this body, Republicans and Democrats across the political
spectrum, including at that time the two leaders, Senator Dole and
Senator Daschle, came together and supported legislation of mine to ban
for 1 year the use of these antipersonnel landmines by the United
States, the first time we have ever unilaterally banned such a weapon.
Our hope was that when we demonstrated that it was possible for us to
do it for 1 year, we could certainly do it for every year thereafter
and again give us a leadership position with the world.
I urge the administration now to consider making that a permanent ban
and to consider joining with Canada and others who want to seek such a
ban throughout the world.
My legislative efforts have been very simple. It would ban production
of antipersonnel landmines, ban the export of antipersonnel landmines,
and ban the use of antipersonnel landmines. Country after country after
country has now adopted similar steps. Country after country after
country has notified me through their prime ministers, or through their
presidents, or the head of their parliaments, and said, ``We have
adopted this legislation.''
I must admit to a growing sense of satisfaction of seeing this done,
but at the same time a sense of apprehension that not enough are doing
it, and it is not being done quickly enough because every year more--
sometimes millions more--landmines are put into the ground, and every
year thousands and thousands more children and civilian men and women
are injured. More and more years in vast parts of countries they can't
raise their crops, they can't graze their animals, and their children
can't go to school because of the landmines, Mr. President.
I have visited critical sites all over the world where the Leahy War
Victims Fund is used where we buy prosthetics, provide wheelchairs, and
give training and rehabilitation to people who have lost arms or legs
from landmines.
My wife is a registered nurse, and she has gone with me when she was
able to get away from her own duties at the hospital. She has gone with
me to these various sites. She has helped people with the fitting of
prosthetics. She has helped with the care of those in the hospitals.
I remember one time, especially, in the country of Uganda, after we
had visited this site. We had American volunteers and others at one of
the first sites at which the Leahy War Victims Fund was used. She came
to me because there was a little boy horribly malformed and terribly
crippled. She and the other nurses there had helped to bathe and clothe
the child. She asked what was wrong with him. He was crippled by polio.
She had hardly ever seen in her years as a nurse a polio victim, unless
it was somebody who had polio decades ago. She asked how could this be
because, as the distinguished Presiding Officer who is a physician
knows, polio is one of the easiest things protected against. For
everyone of us who has children, they automatically get their polio
vaccination. We don't think of it anymore. She said, ``Wasn't a polio
vaccination available for this young boy?'' And there was. The country
had a polio vaccination program. But they could not get to his village
with it because of all the landmines around.
So this young boy was never injured by a landmine, but he is crippled
for life in a country where he is unable to work and grow his food, and
in all probability will not live long because of the presence of
landmines. So if the landmine doesn't get you, the landmine still gets
you.
That is why, Mr. President, the only way you get rid of landmines is
to get rid of them. Every single country has to ban them. And those of
us who have the resources, the power and the technology should join
together and start removing mines. This is true whether it is in
Bosnia, where the mines are the one major threat to American
peacekeepers, or throughout Africa, Central America, every place that
landmines exist.
They serve no real military benefit--clearly not for our Nation, the
most powerful nation that history has ever known. They serve as a
terrible, terrible weapon to the children who pick up the little piece
of metal thinking that it is a toy and have their face torn off, or are
left with other terrible problems. They pose a terrible threat to a
woman who goes to the well to get water for her family and has her legs
blown off. They pose a terrible problem to the man who is out trying to
harvest
[[Page S2350]]
his crops to feed his family, and he touches a landmine and his family
no longer has a father.
That is why we should ban them.
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. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________