[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.

                          ____________________