[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 35 (Tuesday, March 18, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2397-S2411]
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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, it is my understanding, under the previous 
unanimous consent agreement, that discussion and debate will be taking 
place on either the resolution that Senators just voted on or the 
pending independent counsel resolution. Is that a correct assumption?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senator from 
Indiana has 40 minutes under the agreement.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I do not believe I will consume the full 40 
minutes. In fact, I am sure I will not. And if I finish before that, I 
would be happy to yield that time back to expedite the process.
  Mr. President, I generally believe that the Senate floor should be a 
place to talk about issues, not about scandals. So my first inclination 
is to voice my support for an independent counsel and hope the process 
will take its course. The need for this investigation should be beyond 
question, proven on the front page of the newspaper every morning.
  Under normal circumstances, there would be little more to say. But 
this circumstance is not normal because it now concerns some of the 
most disturbing questions that can be asked in a democracy.
  Was the executive power of the White House abused to improperly 
influence the outcome of an American Presidential election?
  Were foreign governments invited by the Democratic Party and the 
Clinton administration to corrupt American elections?
  Was the privilege of American citizenship distorted and undermined to 
serve the President's reelection?
  And now we are forced to ask, were American intelligence services 
manipulated by this administration as part of its fundraising machine?
  The revelations that began last October, and have continued until 
this morning, do not primarily concern the low standards of our current 
campaign finance system. Those standards, it has been argued, should be 
changed. We will be debating that in this body.
  What the almost daily revelations we have seen do concern are the 
legal and ethical breaches of the current standards by the Clinton 
administration. And that charge is different in kind in the seriousness 
from the policy debate on campaign finance reform.
  It is not the technical violation of campaign finance law that 
primarily concern me. Those are for lawyers and prosecutors to debate 
and decide. The issue is far greater than the sum of those ethical and 
legal problems. All of the strands of this scandal--high-pressure soft-
money fundraising, illegal foreign contributions, the abuse of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service and of the CIA--reveal an 
administration obsessed with reelection, indifferent to ethical rules 
and organized to skirt the law.
  All of these efforts were directed toward one event, and one date: 
The Presidential election on November 5, 1996.
  There are countless complex elements to this scandal, but only one 
central issue. Was the executive branch of Government corrupted and 
compromised by a rogue political election operation centered in the 
Democratic National Committee, the Office of the President, the Office 
of the Vice President, and the Office of the First Lady?
  By definition--no matter what the justification--this would not just 
be a violation of legal and ethical standards regarding campaign 
financing, but arguably a crime against democracy itself.
  The most recent revelation is one of the most damaging. We now know 
that the Central Intelligence Agency was used by the Democratic 
National Committee to encourage access to the President by Roger 
Tamraz, an international fugitive and major donor to the Democrat 
Party.
  We know that Donald Fowler, chairman of the DNC, made a call to the 
CIA asking that that agency provide classified information to the White 
House about Mr. Tamraz and his business interests in a pipeline project 
funded partially by Chinese businessmen.
  When the National Security Council refused to recommend a meeting 
between Mr. Tamraz and President Clinton, the White House eventually 
scheduled at least four that we know of. One meeting in April 1996 took 
place while Mr. Tamraz was being sought for questioning by Interpol, 
the international

[[Page S2398]]

police agency, for bank fraud in Lebanon. Mr. Tamraz made $177,000 in 
donations to Democrat causes and maintained business ties with both 
Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Muammar Qadhafi's Libya.

  The White House has responded by saying in effect, as they have said 
to every issue that has been raised regarding their ethics and 
regarding their fundraising operation, ``Well, everyone is doing it.''
  Mr. President, unless there are things going on here in the Senate 
that I do not know about, the White House defense that ``everyone is 
doing it'' does not apply here.
  It has been said that the confirmation process is at fault in the 
withdrawal of the Anthony Lake nomination, the individual who headed 
the National Security Council during these events.
  The fault, in fact, Mr. President, lies elsewhere. The Lake 
nomination was eventually undermined because he was forced to operate 
in the heart of a political fundraising machine whose abuses are being 
revealed to us in expanded detail each day.
  The White House blames partisan Republicans, but the final straw in 
the failure of this nomination came because our intelligence services 
were politicized for partisan political advantage.
  We are not entirely sure what Mr. Lake's role was in this. That is 
the reason why we requested interviews with NSC staff, interviews that 
were denied, and why we were going to seek today subpoenas to order 
those interviews to take place.
  But we do know what the White House role was. And it was clearly 
inappropriate. If Anthony Lake is the victim of a political process 
gone haywire, that political process is to be found in the White House 
itself.
  The most recent revelation is part of a pattern, a pattern of abusing 
executive power for political ends.
  Concerning political solicitation at the White House, we now know 
that the Office of the President, the Office of the Vice President, and 
the Office of the First Lady were all involved in these efforts.
  We know that the President's request for immediate action on 
fundraising in early 1995--the written message that read ``ready to 
start overnights right away''--we know that this began a program of 
White House coffees and Lincoln Bedroom overnights that eventually 
raised nearly $40 million.
  We know that an unsigned memo was written to Martha Phipps, deputy 
chief of staff to the chairman of the Democratic Party, which suggested 
10 White House rewards for major donors: two seats on Air Force One, 
two seats on Air Force Two; six seats at all private dinners; six to 
eight spots at all White House ceremonies and events; official 
delegation trips abroad; better coordination on appointments to boards 
and commissions; White House mess privileges; White House resident 
visits and overnight stays; guaranteed Kennedy Center tickets; six 
radio address spots; photo opportunities with White House principals.
  We know, Mr. President, that at least 7 of these 10 perks were 
actually used in fundraising efforts. We know that the administration, 
in its fundraising efforts, applied few, if any, ethical standards to 
those who were given access to the White House.
  Included in the White House coffees with President Clinton were a 
major drug dealer, a twice-convicted felon for theft and tax offenses, 
a Chinese arms dealer, and an international fugitive on conspiracy and 
embezzlement charges.
  We know that the Vice President, Mr. Gore, solicited campaign 
contributions by telephone from his White House office on more than 50 
occasions. One business figure who received a call recounts--and I 
quote--``There were elements of a shakedown in the call. It was very 
awkward. For a Vice President, particularly this Vice President who has 
real power and is the heir apparent, to ask for money gave me no 
choice.''
  We know that the First Lady's chief of staff, Margaret Williams, 
accepted a $50,000 political contribution at the White House.
  We know that Harold Ickes, assistant to the President, wrote a memo 
to a major Democrat contributor advising him on ways to make a $5 
million contribution to the Democratic National Committee tax 
deductible. The three-page document detailed how such a contribution 
could be filtered through 501(c)3 organizations that were helpful to 
Democrat reelection efforts. In the memo, Mr. Ickes wrote, ``If 
possible, it would be greatly appreciated if the following amounts 
could be wired to designated banks.''
  We know there was a clear direction from the President and First Lady 
to use a White House computer database for political purposes. That 
database, by the way, was purchased with $1.7 million of taxpayer 
dollars. One memo marked ``Confidential'' from White House political 
aide Marsha Scott argues that the database be made available ``to the 
[Democrat National Committee] and other entities we choose to work with 
for political purposes.'' On this memo are the handwritten words, 
``This sounds promising. Please advise.'' Signed HRC.
  Another memo from Ms. Scott, to Erskine Bowles, the President's 
current chief of staff, outlines a plan to use the database to reward 
supporters with ``trinkets'' and access. The memo concludes, ``This is 
the President's idea and it is a good one.''
  Another memo from Ms. Scott to Thomas McLarty, the President's former 
chief of staff, states of this plan, ``Both the President and the First 
Lady have asked me to make this my top priority.''
  We know, Mr. President, that former White House counsel Bernard 
Nussbaum, early in the Clinton administration, had contributed a memo 
titled ``Criminal Statutes.'' In that memo he wrote, ``A number of 
criminal statutes prohibit the use of Federal programs, [Federal] 
property or employment for political purposes. Violation of these 
criminal statutes is punishable by imprisonment and/or payment of a 
substantial fine.'' The memo went on to outline the type of activities 
clearly prohibited by the law: ``Soliciting or receiving campaign 
contributions on Federal property or in Federal buildings. This means 
that fundraising events may not be held [--may not be held--] at the 
White House; that no fundraising phone calls or mail may emanate from 
the White House or any other Federal buildings; and that no campaign 
contributions may be accepted at the White House or any other Federal 
buildings.''
  So, Mr. President, based on the Nussbaum memo, the former White House 
counsel memo, then White House counsel, we know this administration was 
fully informed of these ethical and legal standards, the standards of 
the current system, but we also know those standards were broadly and 
repeatedly violated at every level of the Clinton White House.
  And then there is the issue of White House political involvement in 
foreign political contributions.
  We know that many of the principal figures in the current scandal--
including John Huang, Charlie Trie and Johnny Chung--have been longtime 
Clinton supporters, some brought to Washington from Arkansas. They have 
had open access to this administration --Huang visiting the White House 
78 times in 15 months and Chung visiting at least 49 times.
  We know that Johnny Chung took six Chinese businessmen to the White 
House to hear President Clinton's radio address on March 11, 1996, in 
exchange for a $50,000 contribution to the Democratic National 
Committee--the contribution that was given to Margaret Williams on 
March 17.
  We know that Charlie Trie attempted to make a $460,000 contribution 
to the President's legal defense fund, claiming the money was collected 
from a variety of sources. Yet the serial numbers on the money orders 
were sequential and much of the handwriting was identical. Initially, 
only $70,000 of the money was returned. It took several months for the 
law firm overseeing the fund to return the remainder of the 
contribution.
  We know, Mr. President, that John Huang was an official at 
the Clinton Commerce Department with a top-secret security clearance. 
While an official at Commerce, he recommended policies unfavorable to 
Taiwan and supported by China. We know that John Huang visited the 
Chinese Embassy at least two times during his tenure. In one instance, 
Mr. Huang requested top-secret documents on May 10, 1995, the day he 
was scheduled to meet the Chinese Ambassador.

[[Page S2399]]

  We know that in an Oval Office meeting on September 13, 1995 --
including President Clinton, Bruce Lindsey, John Huang, and James 
Riady, the Indonesian head of the Lippo Group--a decision was made to 
transfer Mr. Huang to the Democratic National Committee where he became 
vice chairman of finance.
  We know that John Huang approached officials of the Asian American 
Business Roundtable with a plan to channel more than $250,000 through 
roundtable members to the Democratic National Committee in return for a 
$45,000 kickback.
  We know Huang helped arrange a California fundraiser at a Buddhist 
temple, attended by Vice President Gore, in which illegal contributions 
were transmitted to the DNC through third parties. One participant was 
paid $5,000 in cash in small bills and told to write a check. Vice 
President Gore claimed for 2 months he was unaware this event was a 
fundraiser. But a memo later surfaced that revealed that Vice President 
Gore's staff had briefed him on the fundraising purpose of the event.
  We know that John Huang raised more than $3 million for Democrats in 
illegal contributions from Asian sources.
  We know that the FBI, based on surveillance of the Chinese Embassy, 
expressed serious concerns that the Chinese Government was attempting 
to influence American elections through illegal contributions. That 
information was communicated to two officials at the Clinton White 
House in June of 1996. For reasons that for the moment are unclear, Mr. 
President, that information was not acted upon.
  Another area of White House political involvement concerns the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service.
  We know in September 1995 a Democrat activist from Illinois wrote to 
the First Lady to alert her of an ``opportunity'' presented by a new 
Immigration and Naturalization Service policy to increase the pace of 
naturalization. Daniel Solis wrote, ``The people stuck in Chicago's 
naturalization bottleneck represent thousands of potential voters.'' He 
added that ``similar backlogs exist in politically important States'' 
like California and Texas.
  We know the Vice President's office initiated a program called 
Reinventing Citizenship USA. We know the Vice President's office became 
involved in this project. A senior advisor to Vice President Gore sent 
an e-mail to a gentleman by the name of Dough Farbrother, another Gore 
aide, in March of 1996. Mr. Farbrother, being another Vice Presidential 
aide, received the memo in 1996, and that memo stated, ``The President 
is sick of this and wants action.''
  We know that in a later message to the Vice President, Mr. Farbrother 
said that the Immigration and Naturalization Service is not doing 
enough to ``produce a million new citizens before election day.''
  He concluded that, ``Unless we blast INS headquarters loose from 
their grip on the front line managers, we are going to have way too 
many people still waiting for citizenship in November.''
  We know that Mr. Farbrother later drafted a memo to President Clinton 
on behalf of Vice President Gore, which stated that ``if we are too 
aggressive in removing the roadblocks to success, we might be publicly 
criticized for running a pro-Democrat voter mill and even having 
Congress stop us.''
  We know that as a result of these efforts 180,000 people were 
processed without criminal background checks. Clearly, the standards of 
citizenship were bent and broken for political purposes.
  Mr. President, in the middle of all this political activity at the 
White House, designed to influence the Presidential election, Vice 
President Gore made the following statement: ``The ethical standards 
established in this White House have been the highest in the history of 
the White House. You have a tougher code of ethics, tougher 
requirements, strictly abided by.'' When that statement was made last 
year, it was barely credible. Today, that statement is offensive and 
outrageous. Evidence piles upon evidence of legal and ethical 
wrongdoing in the Clinton administration.
  Mr. President, each day, it seems, either the New York Times, or the 
Washington Post, or the Wall Street Journal, or other major, credible 
investigative organizations, detail new improper or illegal activity, 
or both, coming out of this administration, related to the campaign 
financing operation run in the White House during the last election. As 
a consequence of this, I believe we are forced to three conclusions by 
this unfolding scandal. First, the White House, in preparation for the 
election, was turned into a political machine--more like Tammany Hall 
than the most ethical White House in history. The staff of the 
President, the staff of the Vice President, the First Lady, the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, and even the CIA were all 
involved. We are not sure exactly what the direct involvement was of 
the President. We know the Vice President, who was referred to as 
``solicitor in chief,'' was a key player in all of this, in one way or 
another, Mr. President, with fundraising or increasing the number of 
Democrat voters. There was even use of the CIA in the operation to fund 
this election, which was conducted in an unprecedented and 
extraordinary and very disturbing way. Clearly, all the advantages of 
the executive branch were employed in the President's reelection 
effort.
  Mr. President, there is something deeply disturbing and inherently 
troubling about all of this. In a democracy, we prevent public 
officials from using their public office to improperly influence the 
outcome of elections because such practices are, perhaps, the most 
serious form of corruption in a democracy.
  The second conclusion from all of this is that the return of illegal 
money by the Democrat National Committee comes after the benefits that 
it bought, after the election is past and after the damage is done. In 
reality, the money raised by Johnny Huang and others cannot be returned 
because it has already been used. The DNC will simply raise new money, 
which is then refunded. We must not fool ourselves that returning 
illegal money is sufficient punishment, or any kind of punishment at 
all. It turns illegal funds into a campaign loan to be repaid after the 
votes are counted. And now it is unclear just when that loan will ever 
be repaid, because despite public announcements that the DNC is 
returning illegal contributions, not a penny--at least a reported 
penny--has yet been returned.
  Finally, this unfolding story of the White House improperly 
influencing the result of the national election is not politics as 
usual, as is so often alleged by the White House in response to each 
new allegation. This is something unique and something uniquely 
disturbing. This administration wants us to believe that its actions, 
if questionable, were normal practice, but we must never, Mr. 
President, become immune to illegality. This record of broken trust and 
broken rules does not primarily indicate the need for campaign finance 
reform; it indicates the need for further FBI investigation. It 
indicates the need for immediate firings in the White House. It may 
indicate the need for criminal prosecutions. It certainly indicates the 
need for independent counsel.

  Every time the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, 
or other publication reports a new aspect of this scandal, the same 
response comes back from the White House: ``Republicans are being 
partisan. This is just politics. We all do it, so let's clean up the 
mess together.''
  No one at the White House, in any context, seems willing to take 
responsibility for ethical and legal violations. If the White House 
will not assume that responsibility, then it must be imposed. Senator 
Thompson's committee will doubtlessly do good work, but its results 
will almost certainly be attacked and discounted by the Clinton 
administration as simply ``partisan politics.'' I supported the effort 
to allow that committee to move forward in its investigation. But it is 
clear that the pattern of response from the White House now that 
whatever is said either by this Senator on this floor, or any 
Republican on this floor, or any Republican in a public statement, or 
conducted by any committee controlled by a Republican chairman--it's 
clear now that every question asked, every allegation made, and every 
statement offered is simply labeled as ``partisan politics.''
  For that reason, it seems that in the end, we have no choice but to 
proceed

[[Page S2400]]

with independent counsel. While far from perfect--and I have had my 
reservations about independent prosecutors--such a process, however, 
was designed to move questions of criminality outside the political 
process. And those questions of criminality in this case are serious 
questions--as serious as it gets--and may reach to the very highest 
levels of our Government.
  This administration has maintained its power, but has squandered its 
integrity. It has actively undermined the integrity of an American 
Presidential election. This is a breathtaking act of political 
arrogance. Yet, the President insists it was justified because, in his 
words, ``The direction of the country was at stake.''
  I wonder what the public response would have been, Mr. President, if 
during the Watergate investigation of then President Nixon the response 
from the President, the response from the Vice President, and the 
response from the administration had been that all the means that we 
took, all the things that we engaged in were justified because our 
political agenda and the direction of our country was at stake.
  To overlook virtually every questionable, improper, illegal practice, 
and to overlook this 14 pages of what we know--who knows what we don't 
know?--and simply say that it was justified on the basis that the 
agenda of this administration was so important that any law could be 
violated, that any ethics rule could be overlooked, that any practice 
could be undertaken, simply to advance their political agenda for the 
future of America, puts this country in a dangerous, dangerous 
situation.
  The ends do not justify the means. While the President and his party 
feel strongly about what the agenda should be for this country, it is 
clear that there are opposing agendas that are debated every day on the 
Senate floor and in the Congress, and debated among the American 
people. It is political arrogance to suggest that one party's political 
agenda for the future of this country justifies the kinds of campaign 
practices that took place in the reelection effort of this President.

  The White House for years has chosen its own direction. That 
direction appears to be the corruption of the very democratic process 
itself.
  Mr. President, I believe this situation has become so serious and so 
potentially threatening, and damaging to the political process and to 
the office of the Presidency that an independent counsel is needed, and 
needed immediately. I, therefore, will join with many here in this body 
in a sense-of-the-Senate resolution calling upon the Attorney General 
to immediately name an independent counsel, someone who is above 
reproach, whose credibility is acceptable to the American people, whose 
integrity is unquestioned, to investigate the extraordinary serious 
allegations printed in major newspapers with great credibility. Just 
reading the quotes alone from memos obtained regarding some of these 
practices raises enough question I believe for the appointment of an 
independent counsel.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort. Clearly the 
administration and the White House has decided to follow the course of 
labeling every charge as simply a partisan attack, equating campaign 
financing in the last congressional election with what took place at 
the White House--and they are leagues apart in terms of degree--
attempting to confuse the issue with phrases like ``Mistakes were 
made''; ``We promise we won't do it again, even though we are proud of 
what we have done.'' The phrases and comments that seem to indicate 
that we are all in the same pot together on this one; ``You guys did 
it. We did it. Let's put behind us what was done and move forward to 
clean up the system.''
  I think it is time people began to take responsibility for their own 
actions. Since the White House refuses to do this, I think it is 
appropriate that we move forward with independent counsel. I will be 
supporting the resolution to be voted on tomorrow.
  Mr. President, if I have any time left, I yield that time.
  Mr. President, 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. NICKLES. 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. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to support the resolution of 
Senator Lott calling for the Attorney General to appoint an independent 
counsel to investigate many of the allegations of illegal activity 
concerning the 1996 election cycle.
  This statement--I will read most of it--is very serious. It bothers 
me as a Senator to do this. I am not a big proponent of the independent 
counsel statute, but I think clearly it was written to avoid a conflict 
of interest between the Attorney General and covered persons, those 
persons being the President, the Vice President, and heads of national 
committees. I think we have seen evidence in the last 2 or 3 months 
that there probably is a conflict of interest between the Attorney 
General and the President and the Vice President and other high 
officials within the Clinton administration.
  In the New York Times there is an editorial that says:

     Disclosures about a Chinese plan to influence the election 
     have taken the fund raising scandal to a new level of 
     seriousness and clarity. Now it is clear that any citizen 
     with a reasonable interest in the efficiency of the Federal 
     investigative agencies and the integrity of the electoral 
     process will want a full account of what went on.

  I agree with that.
  Recent news reports revealed conflicting accounts by President 
Clinton, the White House, and the FBI, concerning whether the President 
was made aware of intelligence information that the Chinese Government 
might be trying to influence the upcoming elections. The FBI believe 
they may attempt to funnel illegal donations into Presidential and 
congressional campaigns. The question whether the President was aware 
of this information and if not, why it was kept from the President, is 
just one of the numerous conflicts of interest pending before the 
Attorney General.
  It is an important issue to determine whether President Clinton was 
aware of the Chinese Government's intended illegal actions before he 
approved White House coffees, lunches, and dinners with individuals 
known to have close ties to the Chinese Government. Charlie Trie, 
Pauline Kanchanalak, and Johnny Chung were allowed frequent access into 
the White House to attend various functions and one-on-one meetings 
with the President.
  Mr. Chung came into the White House reportedly 49 times--and I have 
heard 51 times--and he donated over $366,000 that had to be returned. 
One of Mr. Chung's visits came only 1 day after he delivered a $50,000 
check to Mrs. Clinton's Chief of Staff Maggie Williams in the White 
House. Mr. Chung brought six Chinese businessmen into the Oval Office 
to watch the President's radio address, one of which is the vice 
president of a Chinese company that trades weapons. They had their 
photos taken afterward. The White House was warned about handing over 
these pictures by the President's own NSC staff. They labeled Mr. Chung 
a ``hustler'' and warned that he might use the pictures to ``enhance 
his business.'' In spite of this, Mr. Chung also brought Chinese beer 
executives into the White House who evidently obtained their pictures 
with the President since it was reported that one of these pictures was 
featured on a billboard advertisement for the beer company.
  Pauline Kanchanalak visited the White House at least 26 times and 
donated approximately $250,000 to the DNC. On the day Ms. Kanchanalak 
brought some of her business clients to a White House coffee with the 
President, she donated $85,000 to the DNC and it was recorded that the 
donation was for ``coffee with the President of the United States.'' 
Ms. Kanchanalak has not been available to answer questions about any of 
this. She apparently left the country after congressional subpoenas 
were issued and there were news reports that documents were destroyed.
  Charlie Trie visited the White House up to 37 times and delivered 
$640,000 in checks and money orders to the President's legal defense 
fund. The money had to be returned since it was from unverifiable 
sources. About 1 month after Mr. Trie delivered the bulk of these 
checks, President Clinton expanded the number of members of the

[[Page S2401]]

U.S.-Pacific Trade and Investment Policy Commission and Mr. Trie was 
appointed to that Commission. The White House denied any connection 
between the donations and the delivery of the money, but questions 
remain unanswered. Mr. Trie also arranged for Chinese arms merchant 
Wang Jun to attend a White House coffee with President Clinton. Wang 
Jun is a former officer of the Chinese People's Liberation Army and was 
chairman of a Chinese company suspected of trying to import illegal 
automatic weapons into the United States.
  Did the President know about the Chinese Government's plan before his 
reelection campaign and his legal defense fund accepted hundreds of 
thousand of dollars in illegal donations?

  Was the President aware of this information when he allowed a Chinese 
arms dealer and manufacturer into the White House?
  Was Mr. Trie's appointment to the Trade Commission related to his 
generous donations to help pay the President's legal expenses and to 
aid his reelection efforts?
  All of these examples show just how many conflicts of interest exist 
for the Attorney General and the Department of Justice to investigate 
these allegations. And that is just what they are at this point--
allegations. However, the independent counsel statute clearly provides 
under section 591(c)(1) and (d) of title 28, United States Code, that 
the Attorney General may invoke the independent counsel process when 
the Attorney General has received specific information from a credible 
source sufficient to constitute grounds to investigate whether a 
violation of any Federal criminal law, other than a Class B or C 
misdemeanor or infraction, may have been committed by any other person 
if such investigation or prosecution by the Department of Justice may 
result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest.
  The independent counsel statute is intended to allow the Attorney 
General to request the appointment of an independent counsel when this 
type of conflict of interest occurs involving those at the highest 
levels of our Government and top officers of the President's political 
party. I believe that Attorney General Reno has ample information and 
should therefore, invoke this provision of the statute to immediately 
request appointment of an independent counsel.
  Attorney General Reno testified before the Government Affairs 
Committee in favor of the reauthorization of the act. She testified 
that:

       The reason that I support the concept of an independent 
     counsel with statutory independence is that there is an 
     inherent conflict whenever senior Executive Branch officials 
     are to be investigated by the Department and its appointed 
     head, the Attorney General. The Attorney General serves at 
     the pleasure of the President. . . .

  Section 591 (a) and (d) of the independent counsel law also contains 
a mandatory provision which requires the Attorney General to invoke the 
independent counsel process whenever the Attorney General has received 
specific information from a credible source sufficient to constitute 
grounds to investigate whether any Federal criminal law, other than a 
Class B or C misdemeanor or infraction, may have been violated by a 
covered person.
  There has been specific credible information publicly reported that 
officers and agents of the Democratic National Committee were acting 
under the direction of and pursuant to instructions given by the 
President, Vice President, and other top level officials in the White 
House and the Clinton-Gore reelection campaign. The President, Vice 
President, the Clinton-Gore Reelection Campaign chairman and treasurer 
are named in the statute as covered persons.
  If it is correct that certain officers and agents of the Democratic 
National Committee were acting under the direction of the reelection 
campaign and were in effect exercising authority for the campaign at 
the national level, then it is open to interpretation whether the 
chairman and top officers of the DNC would also be covered persons 
under the law.
  The law also provides a list of other covered persons which includes 
the Attorney General, certain top Justice Department officials, Cabinet 
Secretaries, and other top level administration officials. Any person 
working in the Executive Office of the President with a salary of 
$133,500 or above is also a covered person under the law.
  What this means is that if the Attorney General receives specific 
information from a credible source that any Federal criminal law, other 
than a Class B or C misdemeanor or infraction, may have been violated, 
Attorney General Reno must conduct a preliminary investigation and seek 
the appointment of an independent counsel if further investigation is 
warranted.
  There are numerous Federal laws that may apply to the allegations we 
have heard about and seen reported in the news:
  Title 18 of the United States Code, section 599 makes it unlawful for 
a candidate for Federal office to promise an appointment to any public 
or private position or employment in return for support of his 
candidacy.
  Section 600 makes it unlawful to promise employment, a contract, or 
other benefit in exchange for any political activity or support for a 
candidate or political party.
  Section 607 makes it unlawful for any person to solicit or receive 
any contribution intended to influence an election for Federal office 
in any [government] room or building.
  This is the tone that has been related to the President's fundraising 
coffers and also to the Vice President's phone calls.
  Section 641 makes it unlawful to convert Government property which 
includes telephones, copy machines, or Government computer records for 
ones own use.
  Section 201 makes it unlawful to give or offer a bribe to a public 
official in order to influence an official act.
  Section 205 makes it unlawful for a Government employee to act as an 
agent for anyone before a Federal agency on matters that the United 
States is a party or has a direct interest.
  Section 793 makes it unlawful to communicate national defense 
information to anyone not entitled to receive it.
  Section 794 makes it unlawful to communicate national defense 
information to a foreign government or representative of a foreign 
government.
  Section 219 prohibits a Federal Government official or employee from 
acting as foreign agent by delivering money actually derived from 
foreign countries.
  Sections 611-621 of the Foreign Agents Registration Act prohibit any 
person from acting in any capacity on behalf of a foreign government or 
foreign political party without registering with the Attorney General.
  Section 1905 makes it unlawful for a Federal employee to make an 
unauthorized disclosure of proprietary business information.
  Section 1956 is the money laundering statute.
  Section 1505 makes it unlawful to obstruct an agency or committee 
proceeding.
  All of these laws are subject to:
  Title 18, section 371, conspiracy statute which makes it unlawful to 
conspire to commit any offense against the United States; and sections 
1341 and 1342, mail and wire fraud statutes which make it unlawful to 
use the mails, radio, or telephones in connection with any scheme to 
defraud or obtain money by false pretenses.
  Section 1001 false statements statute which makes it unlawful to make 
a false statement or use a document containing materially false 
statements in a matter before the executive branch and with some 
limitations, the judicial and legislative branches.
  The Federal election laws make it unlawful to: Solicit or accept 
political contributions from foreign nationals in section 441e; it 
makes it unlawful to knowingly accept a contribution made in the name 
of another person; section 441f; or makes it unlawful to solicit any 
contribution from persons with contracts with any government agency; 
section 441c.
  These are only a portion of the Federal laws that apply to the 
allegations currently under review.
  Recent news accounts of solicitations of campaign contributions by 
the Vice President, and possibly the President or senior White House 
staff, occurring in White House offices not used for residential 
purposes, or onboard Air Force One, may have violated Federal criminal 
laws prohibiting soliciting or receiving political contributions in any

[[Page S2402]]

Government room or office or conversion of Government property to one's 
own use.
  There has been specific credible information publicly reported that 
the Cheyenne-Arapaho Indians of Oklahoma contributed $107,000 to the 
Clinton-Gore reelection campaign in order to meet with President 
Clinton to discuss the return of Federal lands. It also was reported 
that Clinton-Gore reelection campaign chief fundraiser Terrance 
McAuliffe may have offered a Government benefit of access in exchange 
for additional political support which may violate Federal law 
prohibiting the promise of a Government benefit in exchange for 
political activity or support.
  There has been specific credible information publicly reported that 
President Clinton, Vice President Gore, Deputy Chief of Staff Harold 
Ickes, and other covered White House and Clinton-Gore campaign officers 
coordinated the solicitation and expenditure of independent Democratic 
Party funds which may be in violation of the Federal election laws. It 
was further reported that Democratic party advertising and expenditures 
were directed toward the reelection effort which may have had the 
effect to render these funds subject to campaign finance limitations to 
which they otherwise were not subject.
  There has been specific credible information publicly reported that 
President Clinton met with Long Beach officials to advance a proposed 
contract between the city of Long Beach and the Chinese state-owned 
merchant fleet, the China Ocean Shipping Co., COSCO, to lease an 
abandoned United States Navy Station at Long Beach. It was also 
reported that individuals--Charlie Trie, Wang Jun, and Johnny Chung--
with business interests linked to the Chinese shipping company made 
campaign donations to the Democratic National Committee and visited the 
President at a White House coffee during the negotiations for this 
lease which may have violated Federal laws if any promise of a 
Government benefit was given in exchange for political activity or 
support or if a promise of money from a foreign government was given.
  Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that oil financier Roger 
Tamraz, who had an outstanding international arrest warrant for 
allegedly embezzling $200 million from a Lebanese bank, attended a 
White House coffee, a White House dinner and reception, and viewed a 
movie with President Clinton. All of these visits were allowed in spite 
of warnings from the President's own National Security Counsel Asian 
specialist's recommendation that Mr. Tamraz should have no future 
meetings or future access to the White House. Mr. Tamraz met with the 
NSC specialist in an attempt to obtain support from the administration 
for a multibillion dollar oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to Turkey 
that he was negotiating to build. He then tried to set meetings with 
Vice President Gore and President Clinton.
  The specialist's advice appears to have been followed until Mr. 
Tamraz made donations of $50,000 and then $100,000 to the Democratic 
National Committee. When the National Security Counsel determined that 
it was not in the best interest of the United States to support Mr. 
Tamraz's business proposal or for his return to the White House, he 
went to the Democratic National Committee.
  Mr. Tamraz is quoted as saying that he thought that ``through the DNC 
[he] could make a policy heard.'' DNC Chairman Don Fowler is reported 
to have personally called the White House's NSC specialist and asked 
her to drop her opposition to Mr. Tamraz meeting with President 
Clinton. Mr. Fowler apparently also managed to have the CIA send over a 
paper on Mr. Tamraz which Mr. Fowler said would show that Mr. Tamraz 
had helped the United States in the past. The requested meetings with 
the President did occur. It was reported that Mr. Tamraz had four 
meetings with President Clinton in spite of these warnings. What did 
Mr. Tamraz do to warrant such special access? We know that he donated 
at least $177,000 to the DNC and it was reported that he raised more 
money from other large donors.

  Why was a man with an international arrest warrant, accused of 
embezzling $200 million from a foreign bank, allowed into the White 
House to meet with the President?
  Why was this same man allowed to meet with President Clinton over the 
objections of his own National Security Council Asia specialist's 
warnings?
  Why was the chairman of the Democratic National Party involving 
himself in foreign policy issues?
  Why did he call the National Security Council to attempt to change a 
decision?
  How did the chairman of the Democratic National Committee obtain a 
copy of a paper on a donor from the CIA and have it sent to the 
National Security Council?
  On whose authority was this done?
  Was the President aware of his party chairman's actions and did he 
approve?
  If not, why did he continue to meet with this man?
  What was requested in these meetings and was any benefit provided to 
Mr. Tamraz as a result?
  There has been specific credible information publicly reported that a 
cocaine dealer convicted of transporting nearly 6,000 pounds of cocaine 
into this country, Jorge Cabrera, met with President Clinton in the 
White House. Eric Wynn, convicted of 13 counts of stock fraud which 
allegedly was to benefit the Bonano crime family, met with President 
Clinton. And a man alleged to have been associated with Russian 
organized crime, Gregori Loutchansky, also met with President Clinton. 
Mr. Yogesh Gandhi contributed $325,000 to the DNC and met with 
President Clinton to give him a World Peace Award although reports 
allege that he owed $10,000 in back taxes and filed divorce papers in 
court that he was a pauper and could not afford to pay the court's 
fees. Numerous other specific allegations surrounding John Huang and 
Webster Hubbell have been widely reported and raised questions about 
their activities in relation to Chinese interests.
  All of these questions need to be answered. They clearly present a 
conflict of interest for the Attorney General and the Department of 
Justice. And they do involve credible information concerning covered 
persons that may have violated Federal law.
  Mr. President, I urge the Attorney General to appoint a special 
counsel to investigate these charges. I think the law calls for it. I 
think it is very clear. I do not think it is close. So I urge the 
Attorney General to appoint an independent counsel immediately.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The absence of a quorum has been 
suggested. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
speak for 20 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent following my 
presentation that Senator Levin from Michigan be recognized on the 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Levin has time reserved.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss a piece of 
legislation that I and a couple of my colleagues intend to introduce, 
but I did want to comment first on the remarks that have been offered 
previously on the floor of the Senate, including the just-completed 
remarks by the majority whip.
  It is certainly the case that a number of allegations about 
fundraising abuses are serious and ought to be investigated. The 
current campaign financing system in this country is in desperate need 
of revision and reform. The range of abuses that need investigation 
goes all the way around the spectrum. These include abuses by the major 
campaign committees, both the Republican National Committee and the 
Democratic National Committee, congressional campaigns, and the White 
House. There are a wide range of allegations surfacing almost daily now 
for several months about abuses in campaign financing. All of them 
deserve to

[[Page S2403]]

be fully investigated. The American people deserve no less than that.
  Last week, there was an attempt to do a congressional investigation 
resolution on the floor of the Senate. That resolution was attempting 
to put blinders on the investigation sufficient so that it would only 
investigate a little corner of the problem, and it was the majority 
party saying only investigate the opposition. It turned out that 
sufficient members of the Senate would not agree with that. So, finally 
it had to be broadened to say investigation of campaign finance abuses 
ought to be across the board, no matter which party is involved with 
those abuses. As a result the charter given last week to the Senate 
Committee that will investigate these abuses, is a broader charter 
rather than a narrower charter.
  The same should hold true with the discussion about the resolution 
now before the Senate. This resolution, once again, attempts to narrow 
it. The resolution that will be offered by the Senator from Michigan, a 
substitute offered by Senator Levin, is what I will choose to support, 
largely because that resolution contemplates that abuses shall be 
investigated with respect to either party or any party in which there 
is an allegation of fundraising abuse.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee already has petitioned the Attorney 
General on the question of an independent counsel. The law provides for 
that. The law does not provide for the Senate to intervene on a 
political basis to petition for an independent counsel. What is 
happening here is unprecedented. It has not happened previously.
  Part of this debate is whether this is politics or substance. We 
already have a congressional investigation that will now be organized 
and will be very well funded. We already have a letter from the Senate 
Judiciary Committee to the Attorney General. The question of whether 
this legislation now brought to the floor is a political missive, I 
suppose, is up to those who are looking at it and would make judgments 
about its narrow scope. I prefer that we consider the resolution and 
vote for the resolution offered by the Senator from Michigan.
  I make one additional point. What is not on the floor of the Senate 
is campaign finance reform. It ought to be. Campaign finance reform 
ought to be brought to the Senate. We ought to debate it. We ought to 
reform the campaign finance system.
  What is not on the floor of the Senate, and it must be, is the 
Chemical Weapons Treaty. That is very important business that is before 
the body. We must bring it to the floor and have a vote on it and have 
a debate on the Chemical Weapons Treaty. The attempt to end the spread 
of poison gases for warfare in this world is a noble attempt initiated 
first by President Reagan and then by President Bush, sent to us by 
President Clinton. Many countries have already signed the initiative. 
It is being held up in this body. Very soon we will have to take 
aggressive action to try to wedge that to the floor of the Senate and 
insist on a vote on the important Chemical Weapons Treaty.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dorgan pertaining to the introduction of S. 465 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous unanimous-consent ordered, 
the Senator from Michigan is to be recognized. The Senator from 
Michigan is recognized for not to exceed 30 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is only one reason the Senate is 
being asked by the majority leader's resolution to intervene in the 
independent counsel process which is being considered by the Attorney 
General. The reason is partisan politics, pure and simple. It is 
regrettable for many reasons, particularly following last week's 
determination by the full Senate to support a broad and fair and 
evenhanded investigation by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee 
into campaign finance practices in the 1996 election--Presidential and 
congressional, House and Senate, Republican and Democratic. In doing 
that last week, we recognized as a body that abuses in campaign 
fundraising are not in the exclusive domain of either political party, 
or either end of Pennsylvania Avenue. We confirm the view, as stated in 
the Governmental Affairs Committee report, in support of funding a 
broad scope investigation that:

       The committee intends to investigate allegations of 
     improper activities by all, Republicans, Democrats, or other 
     political partisans. It will investigate specific activities, 
     not the political party against which the allegations are 
     made.

  But now, in a partisan attempt to reestablish the focus of the press 
and the public on just the Democratic National Committee and just the 
Clinton-Gore campaign, the majority leadership brings this resolution 
to the floor. The very wording of the resolution reveals its partisan 
objective. Nothing in the resolution mentions activities in connection 
with the Republican National Committee, or the fundraising activities 
of Members of Congress. The resolution mentions possible Democratic 
problems exclusively and calls upon the Attorney General to seek the 
appointment of an independent counsel to investigate only allegations 
against Democrats. It is an unbalanced, partisan piece of work, and I 
expect it will receive the unbalanced partisan vote that it deserves.
  But in addition to the reversal that it reflects of the Senate's 
unified position on a broad, bipartisan investigation into campaign 
finance reform, it does damage to the very law that it is seeking to 
invoke. For the past 18 years I have served as either chairman or 
ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee with jurisdiction over the independent counsel law. I have 
been actively involved in three authorizations of this important 
statute. And having experienced and studied the history of this law, it 
is apparent to me that this resolution runs directly counter to the 
fundamental purpose of the independent counsel law.
  The independent counsel law was enacted in the aftermath of 
Watergate. The Watergate Committee recommended, and Congress agreed, 
that we needed an established process by which criminal investigations 
of our top Government officials could be conducted in an independent 
manner free from any taint of favoritism or politics. This was 
necessary, we decided, in order to maintain the public's confidence in 
one of the basic principles of our democracy--that this is a country 
that follows the rule of law. We established a process whereby the 
Attorney General would follow certain established procedures in 
reviewing allegations of criminal wrongdoing by top Government 
officials and decide at certain stages whether to ask a special court 
to appoint a person from the private sector to take over the 
investigation and conduct it independently from the chain of command at 
the Department of Justice. We wanted the public to have confidence that 
investigations into alleged criminal conduct by top Government 
officials were no less aggressive--and I might add no more aggressive--
than any such investigation of the average citizen. We particularly 
wanted to take any suggestion of partisanship out of the investigative 
and prosecutorial decisionmaking process.
  So here is what we did. We established the requirement that if the 
Attorney General receives specific information from a credible source 
that a crime, other than a class B or C misdemeanor, has been committed 
by certain enumerated top Government officials, the Attorney General 
has to conduct a threshold inquiry lasting no more than 30 days, to 
determine if the allegation is frivolous or legitimate. The top 
officials who trigger this so-called mandatory provision of the act are 
the President and Vice President, the Cabinet Secretaries and Deputy 
Secretaries of the executive branch departments, plus very top White 
House officials who are paid a salary at least as high as Cabinet 
Secretaries or Deputy Secretaries, and in addition the chairman and 
treasurer or other top officials of the President's campaign committee.
  If, after that threshold inquiry, the Attorney General determines 
that there is specific information from a credible source that a crime 
may have been committed, the Attorney General must then conduct a 
preliminary investigation lasting no more than 90 days in which she 
gathers evidence to determine whether further investigation is 
warranted. If, after the conclusion of the 90-day period, the Attorney 
General determines that further investigation is warranted with respect 
to a covered official, then she must seek the

[[Page S2404]]

appointment of an independent counsel. The Attorney General is required 
by law to seek such appointment from a special court made up of three 
article III judges appointed for 2-year terms by the Chief Justice of 
the Supreme Court.
  The independent counsel law also has a provision that gives the 
Attorney General the discretion--and I repeat the discretion--to seek 
an independent counsel where there is a criminal allegation against a 
noncovered official and the Attorney General determines that the 
Department of Justice has a political, personal, or financial conflict 
of interest with respect to the investigation. There must still be 
specific information from a credible source that a crime may have been 
committed and a preliminary investigation to determine whether further 
investigation is warranted. Use of this provision is contemplated where 
the Attorney General or top Justice Department employees may have been 
personally involved in the matters under investigation or where the 
Attorney General has an unusually close personal relationship with the 
subject of the investigation.

  A third provision of the independent counsel law provides that the 
Attorney General may seek the appointment of an independent counsel 
relative to allegations against Members of Congress. The independent 
counsel law provides that if the Attorney General receives specific 
information from a credible source that a crime may have been committed 
by a Member of Congress, she can determine whether the continued 
investigation of that allegation should be conducted by the Department 
of Justice or whether it is in the public interest that the 
investigation be conducted by an independent counsel. Like the conflict 
of interest provision, this is a discretionary authority, but it is one 
the Attorney General has available to her in matters involving Members 
of Congress.
  In crafting the independent counsel law, Congress contemplated a role 
for Congress with respect to the appointment of an independent counsel 
in a specific case. We included a provision that is tailored to the 
purposes of the law. The independent counsel law explicitly provides 
that the appropriate avenue for congressional comment on the 
appointment of an independent counsel is through action of the 
Judiciary Committee. The law provides that either a majority of the 
majority party or a majority of the minority party may request the 
Attorney General to appoint an independent counsel acting in the 
Judiciary Committee. Upon receipt of such a letter, the law provides 
that the Attorney General must respond in writing to the authors of the 
letter explaining ``whether the Attorney General has begun or will 
begin a preliminary investigation'' under the independent counsel law 
setting forth ``the reasons for the Attorney General's decision 
regarding such preliminary investigation as it relates to each of the 
matters with respect to which the congressional request is made. If 
there is such a preliminary investigation, the report shall include the 
date on which the preliminary investigation began or will begin.''
  The Attorney General is not obligated to trigger the statute when she 
receives such a letter. She is not required to initiate a threshold 
inquiry or conduct a preliminary investigation. She is only required to 
respond within 30 days, as I have indicated before. That is the process 
that we provided in the independent counsel law for Congress to express 
an opinion in triggering the statute.
  Now, why did we adopt that procedure specifically in the statute? We 
wanted to provide an opportunity for congressional expression in a 
moderate way. We did not say the Senate or the House could trigger the 
required report by resolution, thereby raising the stakes and 
increasing the level of possible partisan bickering. We provided for 
members of the Judiciary Committee to make the request to the Attorney 
General, and we required of her only that she respond in writing to the 
letter in a 30-day period in the manner indicated. So we channeled 
congressional concerns about the appointment of an independent counsel 
into a low-key, limited process to keep partisan politics at bay.
  We also established this limited process because central to this law 
is the constitutional requirement that the Attorney General control the 
triggering of the statute. Congress as a whole is constitutionally 
prohibited from forcing the Attorney General to seek an independent 
counsel. In fact, when the constitutional challenge to the independent 
counsel law was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Morrison 
versus Olson, the Supreme Court based its finding of constitutionality 
for the law upon the fundamental principle followed in the statute that 
the Attorney General has full authority to exercise her discretion free 
of congressional control.
  The Supreme Court said the following in Morrison versus Olson:

       We observe first that this case does not involve an attempt 
     by Congress to increase its powers at the expense of the 
     executive branch . . . Indeed, with the exception of the 
     power of impeachment--which applies to all officers of the 
     United States--Congress retained for itself no powers of 
     control or supervision over an independent counsel. The act 
     does empower certain members of Congress to request the 
     Attorney General to apply for the appointment of an 
     independent counsel, but the Attorney General has no duty to 
     comply with the request, although he must respond within a 
     certain time limit . . . Other than that, Congress' role 
     under the Act is limited to receiving reports or other 
     information and oversight of the independent counsel's 
     activities, functions that we have recognized generally as 
     being incidental to the legislative function of Congress.

  The resolution before us would tend to undermine that basic principle 
of this law. It also does undermine the nonpartisan spirit which has 
been so important to this law's operation. This law has been 
reauthorized in this Chamber at the instigation, I believe, at least on 
the last three occasions, of then Senator Bill Cohen, Republican from 
Maine, and myself. We always did it on a bipartisan basis. We always 
told each other it was critical to this law's functioning that it be 
implemented carefully as written and not be undermined by bipartisan 
efforts to use it to its advantage in this most political body.

  That is why as an alternative to the majority leader's resolution I 
have introduced, with Senator Leahy, a resolution which simply urges 
the Attorney General to follow the law as it is written, to do her job 
with respect to all three of her powers to invoke the statute: The 
mandatory coverage of covered officials in the executive branch, the 
conflict of interest provision, and the Members of Congress provision. 
And it asks her to consider all allegations involving Federal 
elections, Democratic and Republican, Congress and the President, and 
to do so free of any political considerations.
  The majority leader's resolution is problematic both for what it 
leaves out and what it includes. It leaves out any reference to 
allegations against Members of Congress and the Republican Party, and 
it includes conclusory language with respect to the allegations against 
the White House and the Democratic Party. The resolution leaps to 
judgment and purports to make the very judgments about possible 
criminality which the statute and the Constitution reserve for the 
Attorney General.
  The majority leader's resolution very clearly leaves out the same 
group which some in this body tried to leave out of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee's investigation, allegations against Members of 
Congress.
  Let us just look at some of the activity that the majority leader's 
resolution would rather the Attorney General ignore that is not 
referenced in this resolution at all.
  A few months ago, when the 105th Congress first got underway, the 
media was filled with articles about Speaker Newt Gingrich and his 
misuse of alleged tax-exempt organizations to further partisan 
political ends.
  On January 17, 1997, a specially-appointed investigative subcommittee 
of the House Ethics Committee released a unanimous bipartisan report 
which presented the following conclusions:

       The subcommittee found that in regard to two projects, Mr. 
     Gingrich engaged in activity involving 501(c)(3) 
     organizations that was substantially motivated by partisan 
     political goals. The subcommittee also found that Mr. 
     Gingrich provided the committee with material information 
     about one of those projects that was inaccurate, incomplete 
     and unreliable.

  The two projects referred to, a television course called ``American 
Opportunities Workshop,'' and a college course called ``Renewing 
American Civilization,'' were largely paid for with

[[Page S2405]]

tax-exempt donations to two tax-exempt groups, the American Lincoln 
Opportunity Foundation and the Progress and Freedom Foundation.
  The House bipartisan report notes that tax-exempt groups are not 
allowed to engage in partisan political activities. It states that even 
Mr. Gingrich's tax counsel, ``said that he would not have recommended 
the use of 501(c)(3) organizations to sponsor the course because the 
combination of politics and 501(c)(3) organizations is an `explosive 
mix,' almost certain to draw the attention of the IRS.''
  The unanimous bipartisan report of the House ethics investigative 
subcommittee went on to make the following notable findings:

       Based on the evidence, it was clear that Mr. Gingrich 
     intended that the [American Opportunities Workshop] and 
     renewing American civilization projects have substantial 
     partisan political purposes.

  This is a bipartisan finding, that Mr. Gingrich ``intended'' that 
those two projects have ``substantial partisan political purposes.'' 
And the subcommittee went on:

       In addition, he was aware that political activities in the 
     context of 501(c)(3) organizations were problematic. Prior to 
     embarking on these projects, [the committee wrote] Mr. 
     Gingrich had been involved with another organization that had 
     direct experience with the private benefit prohibition in a 
     political context, the American Campaign Academy. In a 1989 
     tax court opinion [the subcommittee continued] issued less 
     than a year before Mr. Gingrich set the [American 
     Opportunities Workshop] projects into motion, the academy was 
     denied its exemption under 501(c)(3) because, although 
     educational, it conferred an impermissible private benefit on 
     Republican candidates and entities. Close associates of Mr. 
     Gingrich were principals in the American Campaign Academy. 
     Mr. Gingrich taught at the academy, and Mr. Gingrich had been 
     briefed at the time on the tax controversy surrounding the 
     academy.

  And the investigative subcommittee over in the House continued:

       Taking into account Mr. Gingrich's background, experience, 
     and sophistication with respect to tax-exempt organizations, 
     and his status as a Member of Congress obligated to maintain 
     high ethical standards, the Subcommittee concluded that Mr. 
     Gingrich should have known to seek appropriate legal advice. 
     . . . Had he sought and followed such advice . . . 501(c)(3) 
     organizations would not have been used to sponsor Mr. 
     Gingrich's [American Opportunities Workshop] and Renewing 
     American Civilization projects.

  Now, that unanimous, bipartisan report was issued 2 months ago. It 
raises, directly, explicitly, serious questions about the deliberate 
and illegal misuse of tax-exempt organizations by a prominent Member of 
Congress, and false statements to Congress. The House Ethics Committee 
report found that Speaker Gingrich intentionally used two tax-exempt 
organizations for partisan political purposes, even after having been 
specifically denied tax-exempt status for another organization in 1989 
because of the partisan nature of that organization's work. How 
revealing it is that the resolution before us, of the majority leader, 
does not mention one word of that entire matter--not a word.
  And even leaving aside the issue of Mr. Gingrich, given the campaign 
season just behind us, it is also revealing that the resolution before 
us makes no mention in any way of the tax-exempt organizations that 
played so prominent a role in the 1996 election. Congress made a 
decision many years ago that we wanted to give a break to charities and 
civic organizations devoted to working for public purposes, but we 
didn't want to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize partisan political 
activities by these organizations. Blatant violations of the legal 
limits on partisan political activity appear to have taken place during 
the 1996 election cycle by a number of tax-exempt organizations. Let us 
just look at two examples.
  In the last months of the 1996 election cycle, the Republican 
National Committee transferred $4.6 million to Americans for Tax 
Reform, an organization that is exempt from paying taxes. Grover 
Norquist, the president of tax-exempt Americans for Tax Reform, was 
quoted in one Washington Post article as stating that in the last weeks 
before the 1996 election, his organization sent out 20 million pieces 
of mail and paid for millions of phone calls in 150 congressional 
districts. Much of this last-minute activity was made possible by the 
Republican National Committee's $4.6 million contribution. That is 
according to the article.
  An Associated Press article that came out in October of 1996 quoted 
Mr. Norquist as saying that his group was sending out a last-minute, $3 
million mailing to reinforce Republican antitax messages and that 
``two-thirds of the money came from the GOP.''
  Mr. Norquist indicated in the Washington Post article that his group 
didn't pay for televised political ads, but there is evidence to the 
contrary. An ad broadcast in the New Jersey Senate campaign states that 
it was paid for by the tax-exempt Americans for Tax Reform. The ad 
directly attacks the Democratic candidate for missing votes. Here is a 
sample:

       Taxpayers pay liberal Bob Torricelli $133,000 a year, but 
     he doesn't show up for work. That's wrong.

  That ad was broadcast in the final weeks of the campaign. It 
presumably cost a great deal of money to air and may have been paid for 
with those RNC funds.
  Americans for Tax Reform also sponsored what was designated 
facetiously as a special award for Members of Congress, in the last 
weeks of the 1996 campaign. The award was called the ``Enemy of the 
Taxpayer'' award, and it was given to 34 Members of Congress, none of 
whom were Republicans. The press release issued by Americans for Tax 
Reform contained a quotes from Mr. Norquist, directly attacking the 
Democratic Party.
  That is not all. A group called Women for Tax Reform, operating out 
of the same office as Americans for Tax Reform, was created in late 
August 1996, to launch a national television advertising campaign. It 
announced its first two ads, both of which consisted of a woman 
directly attacking President Clinton. One included the following 
statement:

       When Clinton was running, he promised a middle-class tax 
     cut. Then he raised my taxes. He was just lying to get 
     elected. This year, he'll lie some more.

  The activity that I have just described, TV ads, direct mail, phone 
calls, and Enemy of the Taxpayer awards, are as partisan as anything I 
have seen in my years in politics. These activities were directed at 
Federal candidates, they were timed to happen in the last weeks before 
the Federal elections, and they were apparently paid for by millions of 
dollars in contributions given to the tax-exempt Americans for Tax 
Reform, including millions from the RNC.
  The president of Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist, is 
routinely described by the Washington Times as a GOP strategist. In 
1995, he published a book called ``Rock the House'' celebrating the 
Republican takeover of the House of Representatives, for which Speaker 
Newt Gingrich provided the introduction. The quotes inside the cover of 
his own book reveal much about the man running this tax-exempt 
organization.
  Rush Limbaugh states, ``Grover Norquist is perhaps the most 
influential and important person you've never heard of in the GOP 
today.''
  Haley Barbour, RNC chairman, writes, ```Rock the House' is a true 
insider's account of the Republican revolution of 1994.''
  Paul Gigot, a Wall Street Journal columnist and television 
commentator portrays Mr. Norquist as ``one of the main power brokers in 
the new Republican majority.''
  Mr. Norquist is described by these persons--each of whom he chose to 
feature in quotations designed to promote his book--as a Republican 
insider and power broker. That isn't exactly the profile one would 
expect for what is supposed to be a nonpartisan, tax exempt group.
  So, what are the possible violations? What are the possible 
violations of criminal law? The list might include: Knowing and willful 
violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act and false statements to 
the IRS in violation of 26 United States Code 7206 or 18 United States 
Code 1001.
  Let me describe another tax-exempt group. This one has not been 
around for very long. It is called Citizens for Reform. It incorporated 
in Virginia in May 1996, was granted tax-exempt status in June 1996. 
Its articles of incorporation state that the group's purpose is:

       . . . to serve the public interest and to promote the 
     social welfare by fostering and developing greater public 
     participation, on a nonpartisan basis, in the national debate

[[Page S2406]]

     concerning the size, scope, growth and responsibility of 
     government and of the impact of government on the community, 
     the private sector, and citizens in all walks of life.

  This group stated that it expected to conduct conferences, seminars, 
public events, research, and studies. In its application for tax-exempt 
status, which is, by law, a publicly available document, the group 
states that it does not have any membership dues, contributions or 
gifts in 1996, and projects raising only $1,000 in revenue in 1997 and 
another $1,000 in 1998.
  This group, Citizens for Reform, stated that it had no plans to spend 
``any money attempting to influence'' any elections. Within months of 
its creation, this tax-exempt group, however, spent hundreds of 
thousands of dollars on television and radio ads targeting Federal 
candidates, and brimming with the intensely partisan type of campaign 
rhetoric. Ads paid for by this group appear in California, Montana, New 
York, Kansas, Texas, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania. The group now, 
apparently, admits spending $2 million in the 5 months before election 
day.
  One TV ad specifically targeted a Democratic candidate for Congress 
in Montana, Bill Yellowtail. Here is an excerpt from this ad:

       He preaches family values, but he takes a swing at his 
     wife. Yellowtail's explanation: he only slapped her once but 
     her nose was not broken.

  That is supposed to be nonpartisan activity?
  Another TV ad directly targeting a Democratic Congressman, Cal Dooley 
in California. Here is a sample:

       Cal Dooley said no to increased money for drug enforcement. 
     Instead, Dooley gave your money to radical lawyers who 
     represented drug dealers.

  How is that for another nonpartisan ad?
  One of their radio ads was broadcast just before the 1996 election in 
New York. The ad attacked Democratic Congressman Maurice Hinchey and 
lauded his Republican challenger. It was described in a Wall Street 
Journal column as follows:

       Rep. Maurice Hinchey, the ad said, voted against ``sensible 
     welfare reform,'' [and] voted for ``the largest tax increase 
     in history'' and took money from a union with ties to the 
     mob. By contrast, it said, Rep. Hinchey's Republican 
     challenger . . . supports ``real welfare reform,'' would cut 
     taxes and promises to ``stop special-interest influence on 
     Capitol Hill.''

  The Wall Street Journal article went on to say, ``It is impossible to 
find out who put up the money for the ad; Citizens for Reform doesn't 
have to say.'' The president of Citizens for Reform, Peter Flaherty, 
said that his group has spent money in 15 different congressional 
districts in 10 States.
  What happened to the statement of that group that it had no plans to 
attempt to influence any elections? That is a statement made to the IRS 
to get an exemption: ``No plans to influence any elections''--that is 
the representation.
  How did it happen that just months after receiving its tax exemption, 
this group had $2 million and the resources to sponsor patently 
political ads across the country? What happened to the conferences and 
the seminars that this group was going to hold? What happened to the 
statements it made to the IRS that it planned to raise no money in 
1996?
  Those questions give rise to others. Was there a knowing and willful 
violation of Federal campaign laws or false statements to the IRS?
  But the majority resolution before us does not mention any 
investigation of Citizens for Reform or Americans for Tax Reform or any 
other tax-exempt group that was active in the 1996 elections in 
violation, allegedly, of the laws prohibiting those groups from 
engaging in partisan activities and whose tax-exempt millions paid for 
TV ads, voter education materials, get-out-the-vote activities that are 
just completely at odds, apparently, with what a tax-exempt 
organization is allowed by law to do.
  For my part, I trust the Attorney General to conduct a thorough 
criminal investigation of all the allegations against Democrats and 
Republicans, members of the executive branch and the legislative 
branch. I think she will follow the evidence wherever it leads, as she 
should. I also trust her to follow the independent counsel law, to use 
it if she determines that there is specific information from a credible 
source that a crime may have been committed by a covered official, or 
to use it for anyone other than a covered official against whom there 
is such specific information the Department has a personal, financial, 
or political conflict of interest, or Members of Congress if she 
determines it is in the public interest to do so.
  The majority leader's resolution omits what it should include, which 
is the Attorney General's review of activities of Members of Congress.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 3 additional 
minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I will give the Senator 3 minutes from the time reserved 
for this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator is recognized for 
3 additional minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair and my good friend from Vermont.
  The majority leader's resolution omits what it should include, which 
is the Attorney General's review of activities of Members of Congress, 
and it includes what it should omit, by prejudging the very 
investigation by the Attorney General that it seeks. It thereby does a 
disservice to the Nation, which is awaiting an objective and fair 
review, and it undermines the independent counsel law which is 
dependent upon a nonpolitical application free from partisan pressure.
  An alternative resolution that I and Senator Leahy will be offering 
will urge the Attorney General to make a thorough and fair review of 
the allegations, free from political pressure, to reach whatever 
conclusion is appropriate as to the persons covered by the statute, as 
to persons not covered by the statute where there might be a conflict 
of interest, and as to Members of Congress where the public interest 
indicates that an independent counsel might be the proper course for 
her to pursue.

  This alternative resolution we will be offering embodies the spirit 
of the independent counsel law. It permits the process invoked by the 
Judiciary Committee a few days ago to proceed without interference by 
this body. That letter was sent by Republican members of the Judiciary 
Committee to the Attorney General asking her to appoint an independent 
counsel. The law requires her to answer that request within 30 days. We 
should not prejudge that process that the law provides for, and we 
should not prejudge the Attorney General's answer. We should stand by 
the process which was established in the independent counsel law and 
not give in to this partisan effort.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from 
Wisconsin on the floor. I wonder if it might be in order for me to 
speak for about 4 minutes and then it be in order for him to 
immediately reclaim his time. I would take this time from the time 
reserved to the Senator from Vermont as manager on this side.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I spoke for hours on this issue on Friday 
and again yesterday. I will not repeat what I said other than to 
compliment the distinguished Senator from Michigan and others for what 
they have said. I put into the Record the editorial from the Washington 
Post that reaches the same basic conclusion as the resolution of the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan.
  I spoke of the fact that the resolution before us, the resolution 
introduced by the distinguished majority leader and others, is aimed 
just at the President, the Vice President and very, very carefully--
very, very carefully--excludes the Republicans in Congress as it does 
the Democrats in Congress.
  If we want to show real interest in justice, we should say, well, let 
us look at any activity of Members of Congress, too. Let us not act as 
though we are so above the law that we can only point our finger at the 
President. But that is not the point I am here to bring up, Mr. 
President.
  I have had the privilege of serving with five Presidents: President 
Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, President Bush, and President 
Clinton. I have served here with a number of very distinguished 
majority leaders on my side of the aisle: Senator Mansfield, Senator 
Byrd, and Senator Mitchell,

[[Page S2407]]

all as majority leader; and on the other side of the aisle, Senator 
Baker and Senator Dole. Of course, now I serve with the Senator from 
Mississippi [Mr. Lott].
  I mention these majority leaders, Senators Mansfield, Byrd, Mitchell, 
Baker and Dole, because there is one thing that I recall from each one 
of them in setting the agenda of the U.S. Senate. It was that if the 
President of the United States was going to be abroad in a summit 
meeting, negotiating with other heads of state, the U.S. Senate would 
refrain from bringing forward matters directly aimed--especially 
partisan matters--directly aimed at the President of the United States.
  This resolution is directly aimed at the President of the United 
States. And what is going to happen? We will arrange to make sure we 
vote on it almost within hours of the time he will sit down with the 
President of Russia, the leader of the only other nuclear superpower.
  Mr. President, has this body and this town become so partisan that we 
are going to ignore the tradition of all Republican leaders and all 
Democratic leaders in this body, and that is, to show some unity behind 
the President while he is abroad representing not Democrats, not 
Republicans, but all Americans?
  Never in my 22 years in the Senate have I seen such an egregious 
breach of tradition. That does not mean that a President, Republican or 
Democrat, is given a free ride. What that means is that the President 
of the United States will at least be able to demonstrate, when he is 
abroad representing this country, that he is shown some support back 
home during the time he is abroad. When he is back here, we will go 
back and forth and fight as we always have. Fine. That is the process. 
But the tradition has always been to be supportive of the President 
when he is at a summit with other leaders. Of all summits he might be 
attending, what could be more important than the one with the President 
of Russia?
  It was tasteless enough to introduce this resolution and start the 
debate on it while the President was undergoing surgery at Bethesda. 
Now, that, at the very least, shows a tastelessness that also, I 
believe, is unprecedented in this body. That could be chalked up to 
tasteless partisanship that is not appropriate. It is as bad as making 
jokes at the President's expense when he is lying there in pain 
recovering. But we just assume that sometimes we have tastelessness in 
politics.
  However, when we have votes designed to hit directly at the President 
while he is abroad in a summit, that, Mr. President, goes beyond 
tastelessness. That shows no regard for history. That shows no regard 
for the traditions of this body. That shows no regard for the 
importance of a President being abroad.
  Now, I had differences with President Reagan on the way the Contra 
war was run. I recall we held off from any questions of that when he 
was going abroad for summits. I may have had differences with President 
Bush and some of his issues, but we held off on any discussion of that 
when he was going abroad for a summit.
  Mr. President, with all due respect to my good friends on the other 
side of the aisle--and I have many--I ask them to at least take a few 
minutes if they are going to set the schedule, and I ask them to take a 
look at the history of the United States, the history of the Senate, 
the history of the Presidency, and know there are certain things we do 
in this country to demonstrate we are worthy of being only 1 of 100 men 
and women representing a quarter of a billion Americans.
  I am deeply saddened by this. I hope this is only a momentary lapse 
in the kind of traditions that have kept the Senate, occasionally at 
least, the conscience of the Nation. I hope this is only a temporary 
lack of those things that show the Senate to be the best.
  I thank my friend from Wisconsin.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to speak on the 
two resolutions which the Senate is debating, the so-called Republican 
version and the Democratic version. I take this opportunity to explain 
why I intend to vote against both versions as they are now being 
offered.
  At the outset, we should be clear that there is no reason for the 
Senate to actually consider either version. The statute authorizing the 
appointment of an independent counsel gives the authority to make the 
appointment to the Attorney General of the United States, and it also 
provides a mechanism for the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to 
invoke a procedure for the Attorney General to respond to a request for 
appointment of an independent counsel. Mr. President, that, in fact, is 
what has been used in recent days. Both the House and Senate Judiciary 
Committees last week voted to invoke that process. The Attorney General 
has 30 days to respond.

  In effect, what we are doing today, since all of that has already 
happened, what we are doing today is really just shear theatrical 
maneuvering. On the one side, we have the Republican resolution, which 
carefully restricts the request and any implication of wrongdoing just 
to the Clinton White House. That resolution puts Congress off limits 
for an independent counsel investigation for its alleged wrongdoing. It 
puts the Republican National Committee off limits for an independent 
counsel investigation. The Republican resolution turns a blind eye to 
any allegations of impropriety beyond the White House itself.
  On the other side, we have a Democratic resolution that stops short 
of even taking notice of the fact that there have been so many 
allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the Democratic Party that the 
public is crying out for an independent, impartial investigation.
  Mr. President, both sides appear to be ignoring the degree to which 
the fundraising practices of the 1996 elections have gone beyond any 
limits and created the appearance of a system totally out of control. 
The improprieties are not limited to the fundraising activities in the 
White House. Both parties engaged in an almost mindless race to the 
bottom. The staggering amounts of money raised in the 1996 elections, 
more than $2.7 billion, compelled the kind of fundraising excesses 
which continue to shock the country each day. Day after day the front-
page story is yet another tale of improprieties and new scandals. The 
stories encompass both parties, the congressional races as well as the 
Presidential races.
  Mr. President, according to a poll released last week by the Wall 
Street Journal and NBC News, 91 percent of the American people believe 
that, if an independent counsel was appointed, the investigation should 
include all Federal elections, not just the Presidential race, but 
congressional races, as well.
  Last fall, Common Cause filed a request with the Attorney General for 
appointment of an independent counsel to investigate the violations of 
law by both parties in the 1996 campaign.
  At the time, I said that such action might be appropriate. More 
recently, I reached the conclusion that it was necessary because it had 
become clear that the seemingly endless scope of allegations arising 
from campaign fundraising activities touching all levels of our 
Government had grown so vast that the only manner in which the public's 
confidence can be ensured is, Mr. President, by the appointment of an 
independent counsel. In my view, given the breadth of the allegations, 
any investigation conducted by the Department of Justice is inevitably 
and unavoidably subject to the taint of political conflict in this 
context. To this end, I called upon the Attorney General to appoint an 
independent counsel.
  However, an important distinction between the position I have taken 
and that offered by the majority in the form of this resolution is that 
I believe that any call for an independent counsel must necessarily 
include an investigation of all potential wrongdoers, be it on the part 
of the executive branch, the political parties, or the Congress. The 
Republican resolution takes the position that neither Congress nor the 
Republican National Committee should be subject to such an 
investigation. I believe the American people will see through this 
approach. How can anyone suggest to the citizens of this Nation that 
potential illegalities should be subject to an independent counsel, 
provided the target is the President but not the Congress? When the 
target is one party, but not the other, they will surely see such a 
ploy for exactly what

[[Page S2408]]

it is, yet another partisan maneuver designed to delude the public into 
believing that the problem is limited to a small group of people and 
not a systemic problem that demands a comprehensive overhaul of our 
system of campaign finance laws.
  Mr. President, as a threshold, it is essential to understand the 
basis for the independent counsel as well as who is covered by the law. 
The underlying premise behind the independent counsel law, a premise 
which we should sustain and that is threatened by partisan 
gamesmanship, is that we have an inherent obligation to ensure the 
confidence of the American people and the public in investigations of 
the Government. This law, born of the Watergate scandal, was derived to 
restore and protect the public's confidence in these types of 
investigations, and in the process preserve and promote the public's 
confidence in the integrity of the U.S. Government.
  Mr. President, the independent counsel law provides that the Attorney 
General must seek an independent counsel upon finding specific 
information, derived from a credible source, that a violation of 
Federal law has potentially occurred in regard to certain covered 
persons, such as the President, the Vice President, Cabinet members, 
certain high-level officials in the White House, among others. In 
addition to these mandatory provisions, the independent counsel law 
provides the Attorney General with certain discretionary power for 
other persons--those not covered by the mandatory provisions--and, Mr. 
President, to emphasize, Members of Congress. Members of Congress are 
included within these discretionary powers of the Attorney General with 
regard to the independent counsel. In regard to other persons, an 
independent counsel may be sought if, in the face of specific evidence 
of illegality, derived from a credible source, a personal, political, 
or financial conflict of interest exists or may arise as a result of a 
Department of Justice investigation. In regard to Members of Congress, 
the discretionary standard is a public interest standard. In other 
words, if the Attorney General has evidence of a violation of Federal 
law involving a Member of Congress, she may seek an independent counsel 
if she finds it to be in the public interest.
  Mr. President, over the past few weeks, I have been approached by 
colleagues and others who argue that Members of Congress are simply not 
subject to the statute. Mr. President, that is simply incorrect. In 
fact, if one reviews the legislative history of this law, one finds 
that Congress had previously been covered, albeit not explicitly, under 
the other persons provision. In the 1994 reauthorization, Congress 
clarified this and added a separate section solely for Members of 
Congress.
  The conference report accompanying the 1994 amendments to the 
independent counsel law states as follows:

       The 1987 law provided the Attorney General with the 
     discretionary authority to use the independent counsel 
     process for any person whose investigation or prosecution by 
     the Department of Justice ``may result in a personal, 
     financial, or political conflict of interest.'' This 
     discretionary authority permitted the Attorney General, if a 
     conflict of interest were present, to use the independent 
     counsel process to investigate Members of Congress. However, 
     Members of Congress were not specifically identified as 
     falling within that general category of coverage.

  Mr. President, realizing the hypocrisy of a law that allows an 
independent counsel in regard to the executive, but not explicitly with 
regard to Congress, the Congress chose to act. The conference report 
continues:

       The Senate bill gives the Attorney General specific 
     discretionary authority to use the independent counsel to 
     investigate Members of Congress. It broadens the standard for 
     invoking the process with respect to Members from requiring a 
     conflict of interest to requiring the Attorney General to 
     find it would be in the public interest. This broader 
     standard would permit the Attorney General to use the 
     independent counsel process for Members of Congress in cases 
     of perceived as well as actual conflicts of interest.

  Not only did the Congress then act to explicitly include Members of 
Congress, it took the additional step of making the standard for 
invoking the statute easier to apply than it had been previously. As 
the conference report stated, the statute may be invoked in the case of 
a perceived or actual conflict of interest. Now, this is a significant 
statement of congressional intent as to whether or not Congress falls 
within the ambit of the independent counsel statute.
  Yet, Mr. President, the resolution brought to the floor of the Senate 
by a Republican leader chooses a different course and turns a blind eye 
to any potential illegal conduct on behalf of Members of Congress, be 
it real or perceived. It simply says to the Attorney General, appoint 
an independent counsel in regard to the Clinton administration, but not 
in regard to any illegality involving Congress or the Republican 
National Committee. Mr. President, I believe this approach is seriously 
flawed and should be rejected.
  As I indicated previously, 9 out of 10 Americans want all illegality 
in regard to the 1996 elections investigated. Yet, this resolution 
chooses to ignore that which the American people seem to readily 
understand--that being that all illegality should be investigated.
  Mr. President, when one looks at the myriad of allegations that have 
arisen in the wake of the 1996 Federal elections, it is not difficult 
to see why the American people feel that both political parties, and 
Congress, should be included in an independent counsel investigation.
  There has been a lot of attention focused upon alleged wrongdoing by 
the Clinton White House. But equal attention needs to be focused upon 
similar allegations about the behavior of both national parties and the 
Members of the Congress during the fundraising explosion in the 1996 
election.
  At the outset, it should be understood that what is being sought here 
is an independent counsel to investigate allegations of wrongdoing in 
the 1996 election. The distinguished chairman of the U.S. Senate 
Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, stated during the debate on this 
issue on Friday as follows:

       The answer to whether criminal wrongdoing has occurred will 
     of necessity turn on the resolution of disputed factual, 
     legal, and state of mind determinations.

  Repeating that, he said:

       The answer to whether criminal wrongdoing has occurred will 
     of necessity turn on the resolution of disputed factual, 
     legal, and state of mind determinations.

  We have to stress what the Senator from Utah stated: At this stage, 
whether there was criminal wrongdoing turns on the resolution of 
factual, legal, and state-of-mind determinations. Obviously, those 
factual determinations can only be ascertained by an impartial 
investigation, and that statement applies equally to allegations 
regarding Republican conduct in fundraising activities as it does to 
Democratic conduct.
  Without engaging in an extensive description of the allegations of 
improper conduct in the 1996 election, which goes well beyond the 
activities of the White House, let me highlight a few areas.
  First, with respect to the soft money machines that were operated by 
both parties in the 1996 elections, the initial request filed by Common 
Cause last fall for appointment of an independent counsel alleged that 
both the Clinton and Dole Presidential campaigns, along with their 
respective political parties, knowingly and willfully violated Federal 
campaign finance laws. Common Cause specifically charged that both 
campaigns were engaged in illegal schemes to violate the Presidential 
primary spending limits and the ban on soft money being used directly 
to support a Federal candidate.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Utah also alluded to this question in 
his remarks on Friday when he stated:

       There remains significant factual questions of the extent 
     to which the allegedly improper fundraising activity was, in 
     fact, directed toward benefiting Federal campaigns.

  If, indeed, it is determined that there were knowing and willful 
schemes to use soft money in both Presidential campaigns, both parties, 
as Common Cause asserts, would have violated existing law prohibiting 
such activity. Of course, Mr. President, the answer cannot be 
ascertained until an independent investigation is conducted.
  Mr. President, let me describe another piece of soft money activity 
that has been tied directly to the Republican National Committee; that 
is, the transfer of some $4.6 million from the RNC to a tax-exempt 
organization headed by Grover Norquist, a close ally of the Republican 
Speaker of the House. This organization, according to a Washington Post 
story on December 10, 1996, then used the RNC money to flood voters in 
150 congressional districts with millions of pieces of mail and phone 
calls.

[[Page S2409]]

  Now, this story adds a rather peculiar twist to the concept of 
independent expenditures. There have been plenty of complaints about 
various groups, including labor organizations, running independent 
campaigns against particular candidates. But this story describes what 
appears to be what or what may have been a money laundering scheme, 
which allowed the RNC to raise soft money and then transfer it to this 
tax-exempt group, which then used the money for an independent 
expenditure campaign.
  Was there coordination of these expenditures with the candidates 
themselves, or through the Republican National Committee? Was this 
transfer of money designed to allow the RNC to do indirectly what the 
law prohibits them to do directly--that is, spend soft money in a 
congressional campaign? Should we not be seeking the answer to that 
question? Was this a violation of tax laws as well as campaign finance 
laws? As the Senator from Utah stated in calling for an investigation 
of Democratic fundraising activities, there are significant factual 
questions involved here as to the extent to which this fundraising 
activity was directed toward benefiting Federal congressional 
campaigns. Mr. President, those questions cannot be resolved without an 
investigation.
  With respect to the issue of foreign contributions being illegally 
funneled into Federal elections, I think we are all aware of the 
allegations that have been made that the People's Republic of China may 
have targeted Members of Congress, as well as the White House. How 
successful they were remains unknown. Certainly, we ought to have this 
question addressed in any independent counsel investigation with regard 
to Members of Congress, as well as the White House.
  Finally, let's be candid about the fact that the allegations that 
campaign contributions were exchanged for special access to 
policymakers are not directed solely against the current 
administration. The newspapers have been filled with story after story 
of Members of Congress, and the political campaign committees of both 
parties, establishing various schemes to woo and impress large 
contributors.
  For example, in 1995, the Republican National Committee is reported 
to have promised $15,000 donors four meetings a year with House and 
Senate Republican leaders, as well as participation in international 
trade missions. Of course, in fairness, similar charges have been made 
against the Democratic National Committee. Did these schemes cross the 
line in some cases? Was there illegal exchanges of access for campaign 
contributions? The answers can only be ascertained after factual 
investigations.
  It is little wonder, Mr. President, that in light of these types of 
allegations, the American public would ask for a broad investigation. 
It is not difficult to understand why 91 percent of the American people 
think that all illegality, including that of Congress should be 
considered by an independent counsel.
  Mr. President, I mentioned earlier that the statute provides a 
specific mechanism for congressional involvement in the appointment of 
an independent counsel. That mechanism is triggered by a request from 
the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. I also noted that both 
committees had already acted pursuant to that statutory authority to 
submit a request to the Attorney General.
  Unfortunately, that process also broke down along partisan lines. As 
a Democratic Senator who had previously called for appointment of an 
independent counsel, I had hoped to be able to work on a bipartisan 
basis within the Judiciary Committee to formulate a request that would 
transcend party lines. Unfortunately, that effort failed.
  In the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Republican members sent one 
letter; the Democratic members sent another. The respective letters 
resembled the resolutions before us today. As far as I am concerned, 
neither letter went far enough.
  I choose not to sign either letter because the Democratic letter 
stopped short of calling for an independent counsel, while the 
Republican letter, much like this resolution, chose to focus solely on 
the administration and ignored the potential illegal conduct on behalf 
of the Congress. Instead, I sent my own letter asking for the 
appointment of an independent counsel in regard to all illegal activity 
in the 1996 Federal election, including Congress.
  Mr. President, in calling as I have for an independent counsel, I 
have been taken to task by all sides--from those who do not want a 
special counsel and from those who, somehow, believe that by calling 
for an independent counsel to investigate all parties, I am somehow 
seeking to protect the administration. Notwithstanding these 
inconsistent conclusions, I remain firm in my belief that the scope of 
the allegations is such that the only way we can hope to salvage the 
confidence of the American people in any investigation of campaign 
fundraising illegalities is to appoint an independent counsel. In so 
doing, I do not mean to disparage or question the ability of our 
Attorney General, Janet Reno, to conduct a fair and evenhanded 
investigation. I simply feel that the scope of this problem is such 
that irrespective of her evenhandedness, her ultimate conclusion will 
be suspect and challenged on political grounds. In a sense, the 
political nature this debate has taken in the Senate makes my point.

  In regard to many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, I 
simply disagree with those who argue that an independent counsel should 
not be appointed. While I appreciate the sincerity of their 
perspectives, I have reached a different conclusion. The decision to 
call for an independent counsel is not one that any of us should take 
lightly. The statue exists for very specific reasons directed at 
promoting public confidence in the investigation of the Government. The 
statute does not exist to provide elected officials opportunities to 
score political points against officials of the other party as I fear 
has been attempted with this resolution.
  In my view, we risk something far greater than short-term partisan 
advantage by engaging in a process as partisan as this. We risk the 
further erosion of the public's confidence in the Government and in 
particular the U.S. Senate to set aside partisanship and work for the 
good of the American people. At the same time, my friends on the 
Republican side of the aisle ought to be willing to expose their own 
parties to the same intense scrutiny that they urge for the opposite 
party. An evenhanded investigation into all aspects of fundraising 
improprieties in the 1996 election is the fair response.
  This raises the final point I wish to make. That being the pressing 
need to set about doing the work of the people of this Nation in a 
bipartisan, constructive manner. As I travel to each county in 
Wisconsin, as I do each year, I talk with the men and women of my State 
and at each and every stop, be it in Milwaukee or Bayfield County, the 
people I listen to all want us to work together and help solve the 
problems that confront them each and every day.
  Sadly, the short history of the 105th Congress, much like the 104th 
Congress, seems to ignore that call to action. Rather than setting 
about the hard work of actually balancing the Federal budget we debated 
for a number of weeks a constitutional amendment which would have 
forestalled the hard choices until well into the next century. In the 
meantime, the budget process itself, the process by which we can 
actually balance the budget, continues to languish. In fact, the 105th 
Congress has debated more constitutional amendments than it has 
confirmed Federal judges--three constitutional amendments, no judges. 
We have also debated a resolution dealing with the scope of the 
Governmental Affairs inquiry into campaign irregularities and finally, 
after much public pressure, the scope of that inquiry was adjusted to 
cover not just illegality but improper conduct, but only after the 
Senate was needlessly tied up for a number of days. Although this 
resolution before us for the third day now should only be concerned 
with illegality, we are nonetheless at an impasse because the 
proponents of this nonbinding and unnecessary resolution refuse to 
include themselves in the scope of the inquiry. No wonder people are 
turned off by government.
  Mr. President, in conclusion, I will not support this one-sided 
resolution calling for an independent counsel to investigate only one 
aspect of the 1996 elections. I have made clear my belief that one 
should be appointed and I did

[[Page S2410]]

so long before the political exercises which have consumed the 
Judiciary Committee and this body were set in motion a few weeks ago. 
Further, I will not support the Democratic alternative because it fails 
to call for an independent counsel. While the Democratic alternative is 
correct that any investigation must necessarily cover Congress it falls 
short of calling for an independent counsel. But more importantly Mr. 
President, than how any one of us votes on these resolutions, it is my 
sincere hope that we can set aside the divisive partisan issues which 
have characterized the outset of the 105th Congress and move toward 
bipartisan solutions. We should balance the budget, we should address 
juvenile crime, we should strengthen educational programs, and we 
should reform the campaign laws which have created the unrelenting 
money chase that gives rise to so many of the problems which frame this 
debate.
  The campaign finance system in this Nation is broken and in desperate 
need of repair and the American people understand that, even if some 
members of the Senate seem to believe the current, scandal-ridden 
system works fine, they certainly don't feel that way. Furthermore, the 
American people also understand that the responsibility for the current 
scandals regarding the campaign fundraising activities of the 1996 
Federal elections lie at the feet of both parties, the administration 
and the Congress.
  Yet what is ultimately more important than assessing blame and 
passing nonbinding resolutions is whether or not this body moves 
forward and adopts comprehensive, bipartisan campaign finance reform.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the majority is bringing to a vote a 
resolution that urges the Attorney General to begin the process of 
appointing an independent counsel to investigate allegations of illegal 
fundraising in the 1996 Presidential election campaign. I will oppose 
this resolution, if it remains unchanged, because it urges an overly 
narrow, one-sided investigation. Instead, I will support the 
alternative to be proposed by Senator Leahy.
  Let us remember that the independent counsel law places the authority 
to seek an independent counsel in the hands of the Attorney General, 
and her hands are tied unless certain thresholds are met. I have great 
faith in the independence and integrity of Janet Reno. She has already 
invoked the independent counsel process several times during this 
administration. If and when she believes that the law should be 
triggered, she will, I am confident, take appropriate action. Yet the 
majority seeks with this unfortunate resolution to tell her what to do.
  I hope that the majority will instead accept the alternative 
resolution being proposed by Senator Leahy. The Leahy amendment would 
change the majority's resolution in several ways, all for the better.
  The Leahy amendment suggests that the Attorney General use her best 
professional judgment to determine whether to invoke the independent 
counsel process. It asks that she make her decision without regard to 
political pressures. It urges her to do so in accordance with the 
standards of the law and the established procedures of the Department 
of Justice. And it makes no distinction between presidential and 
congressional campaigns; it urges that potential illegalities by 
covered persons be investigated, regardless of which branch of 
government is involved.
  In short, the Leahy alternative attempts to observe both the letter 
and the spirit of the law in this matter. It avoids prejudging the 
issue. Most importantly, it attempts to prevent the further 
politicization of the independent counsel process, a process that 
Congress established in order to take politics out of the investigation 
or prosecution of high government officials.
  Fundamentally, that is why I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
majority's resolution and support the Leahy alternative. Let us not 
attempt to politically influence our Justice Department and Federal 
judiciary in this matter. Let us not make a bad situation worse. Let us 
repeat the bipartisanship that we showed last week. Let us respect the 
independent counsel law and the independence of the judiciary. And let 
us also proceed with a diligent and thorough congressional 
investigation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, 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. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes of the time 
allotted to the minority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I do not know whether in the coming 
weeks the Attorney General will determine whether or not the threshold 
has been reached to name independent counsel. But I do know, in her 
tenure of service, Attorney General Reno has had an uncompromising 
sense of personal integrity. She was called upon in a number of 
instances to reach a determination about investigating high officials 
in this administration, including President Clinton. She has never 
hesitated to act in the interests of justice. So, while I do not 
personally believe at the moment that the circumstances exist for 
independent counsel as defined by the law, it is important, again, to 
reassure ourselves about the quality of justice in this country under 
the leadership of the Attorney General and, just as important, in the 
great traditions of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under the able 
leadership of the Bureau's Director, Louis Freeh.
  Though I recognize that today some disagree and in their own judgment 
believe that it would be better in the national interest to proceed to 
an independent counsel, whether you accept their evaluation on this day 
or perhaps mine in believing it should be left to another day, there is 
the question about whether or not the act is able to be properly 
implemented at this moment as intended in the independent counsel 
statute. It is my judgment that, while we may differ in this 
institution on whether or not the act should be applied, we should be 
able to agree on the underlying problem, and that is there is a problem 
in the court with the ability to appoint a special counsel.
  The statute requires that the Chief Justice appoint judges to serve 
in the special division for a term of 2 years. Three judges are to 
serve on the council that will, in turn, name a special counsel in this 
or any other instance. It was the intention of the Congress to 
facilitate a rotation of these judges to ensure their independence so 
that no one dominates the appointing process, for purposes of the 
confidence of this Congress and the interests of justice. For whatever 
reasons, what were to be temporary assignments on the court in this 
special division appear to be becoming lifetime appointments. Judge 
Sentelle, who chairs the court, is in his third consecutive term. Judge 
Butzner is in his fourth. Judge Fay has now begun his second term.
  Mr. President, this is not what was intended in the independent 
counsel statute, and as we debate today the relative merits of whether 
to appoint an independent counsel, every Member of the Senate needs to 
consider, if the Attorney General is requested to make this 
appointment, who will be making the appointment and what confidence do 
we have the congressional intent of independence and the integrity of 
the judgments will meet the necessary standards of justice?
  Most particularly is the question of Judge Sentelle. Judge Sentelle's 
position in leading this three-judge panel raises serious questions 
and, indeed, I believe inhibits the ability of the Attorney General to 
proceed with confidence when and if she reaches a determination the 
statutory requirements to name an independent counsel are reached.
  During the 1993 debate over reauthorization of the independent 
counsel statute, Senator Cohen perhaps said it best. He said:

       The appearance of justice is just as important as justice 
     itself, in terms of maintaining public confidence in our 
     judicial system.

  Mr. President, no one could possibly believe that the appearance of 
justice is served by having Judge Sentelle in these circumstances name 
an independent counsel. Judge Sentelle is a known

[[Page S2411]]

political associate of two Republican Senators who have views on this 
issue. He has served as a member of Senator Helms' National 
Congressional Republican Club and was chairman of the North Carolina 
State Republican Party convention. He stands accused of engineering the 
removal of Whitewater counsel, Robert Fiske, and replacing him with an 
independent counsel who clearly has exercised his position with 
questionable judgment and clear partisanship. I speak, of course, of 
Kenneth Starr.
  The decision to appoint Mr. Starr came only days after Judge Sentelle 
had a private luncheon with two Members of this institution who had 
strong views on the subject, in what was an extrajudicial and clearly 
inappropriate meeting.
  Mr. President, despite poor judgment, inappropriate actions, Judge 
Sentelle was recently reappointed to his third term on the court. As 
senior judge in this position, with the other two judges serving in 
this similar capacity, both on senior status, he clearly has an 
extraordinary influence over the operation of the appointing process.
  Five former presidents of the American Bar Association considered 
these facts, these extrajudicial communications, and determined they 
give rise to appearance of impropriety.
  As long as Judge Sentelle sits on the special division, there will 
always be questions regarding the objectivity of the independent 
counsel appointments. I believe, therefore, whether you share my 
judgment that the trust should be placed in the Attorney General to 
determine whether or not the requisite requirements have been reached 
in the statute before appointing or requesting the appointment of an 
independent counsel or you agree with other Members of the Senate that 
those criteria have already been reached, we certainly, in the interest 
of fairness, can reach a judgment today that Judge Sentelle should 
recuse himself from his current responsibilities. Failing that recusal, 
it is certainly incumbent upon Chief Justice Rehnquist, given his 
general responsibility for the administration of the courts, to remove 
Judge Sentelle or request that he temporarily remove himself from the 
appointment process.
  I recognize the strong divisions in the Senate. I understand the 
passions that this issue brings to different Members of the Congress. 
But certainly despite our partisan differences or our interpretations 
of the facts, our common interest in justice should lead us to one 
determination. There is a need in our country and in this Senate to 
come away from this debate with a feeling that an impartial and a fair 
administrator of justice is required to implement the independent 
counsel statute, whether that determination in naming an independent 
counsel is to be reached now or whether the facts dictate that they are 
to be named later.
  Mr. President, it is a simple question of fairness and justice. I 
hope other Members of the Senate will join with me in calling upon 
Judge Sentelle, in the best traditions of the American judiciary, to 
recuse himself now, but I also hope, before any other Members of this 
Senate need to rise and express themselves on these facts, the Chief 
Justice of the United States will exercise his responsibilities to 
ensure that the courts are true to their traditions of justice.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________