[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 35 (Tuesday, March 18, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2488-S2489]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          INDEPENDENT COUNSEL

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I don't know that I will have an 
opportunity tomorrow morning to discuss another matter, and I want to 
do so just briefly.
  We will have the opportunity to vote, as the distinguished majority 
leader has indicated, on two resolutions tomorrow. My colleagues have 
done a good job of explaining what the circumstances are. But I hope 
everyone who will watch the debate tomorrow will try to understand the 
circumstances involving the two resolutions and what this issue is all 
about.

  There are four factors here that I want to briefly mention.
  The first factor is the timeliness of this resolution. I am deeply 
disturbed that on the very day that the President found himself on the 
operating table, our colleagues chose to file a resolution demanding 
that there be an independent counsel investigating the President. 
Moreover, on the very day the President leaves for Helsinki to begin 
negotiating extraordinarily important matters with heads of state, this 
body has chosen to vote on the independent counsel resolution. Taste 
and timeliness were certainly not factors in making the decision to 
bring about the resolutions under these circumstances.
  The second issue involves necessity. Certainly necessity wasn't a 
matter of concern here either. In accordance with the law, the 
Judiciary Committee may send a letter to the Attorney General. In good 
faith I think both sides worked to try to find a mutually acceptable 
letter, and that was impossible. So, as I understand it, three letters 
were actually sent. But that started the process under law. That is 
what is required. But that wasn't good enough for some of our 
colleagues. For whatever reason, our colleagues then chose to say, 
``Well, in addition to the legal requirements, we are now going to do 
something extralegal. We are going to do something that was actually 
criticized on this floor when the independent counsel legislation was 
debated.''
  We considered whether we ought to have a debate on the floor about 
requiring or asking for an independent counsel. And the decision was 
made on a bipartisan basis. In fact, Senator Dole was very involved at 
that point in this debate, and the agreement was that having Congress 
vote on the need for an independent counsel for a particular 
investigation would politicize the process.
  So, for that reason, we agreed that it should not be a function of 
the Senate floor, but that it ought to be a legal process confined to 
the Judiciary Committee. That is the way the law was passed.
  Yet, what do we do now? What do we find ourselves faced with? Not 
just a resolution calling for the Attorney General to consider under 
the law the available evidence; the Republican resolution goes even 
beyond that. It says, first of all, that the Judiciary Committee letter 
is not adequate, and, second, that we are going to use a resolution to 
dictate to the Attorney General that she ought to appoint an 
independent counsel--in total violation of the intent and the spirit of 
the law we passed just a few years ago. So the intent, Mr. President, 
is questionable to say the least.
  The third issue is scope. We had a good debate about scope last week, 
and it became clear that a significant majority of the Members on both 
sides of the aisle said if anything is going to be investigated, then 
we better investigate everything. And that, indeed, is what is called 
for in the independent counsel law, which includes the alleged misdeeds 
of senior executive branch officials and Members of Congress.
  Curiously, once more, the Republican resolution, just as it did last 
week initially, specifically limits the scope of the requested 
investigation to the President. Our resolution calls for a review of 
all of the reported improprieties to determine the severity of the 
problem. Our resolution calls for the scope to be as broad as the one 
that was set out in the Governmental Affairs resolution last week and 
adopted in the Senate by a vote of 99 to 0.
  So we will have an opportunity tomorrow to vote on scope, to vote on 
whether or not we limit the independent counsel's investigation just to 
Presidential activity or whether--in the name of fairness, balance, and 
the real intent of the law--everything is on the table. To vote no on 
the Democratic resolution is to say, ``No, we do not want an 
independent counsel to look at Congress.'' So scope is a very critical 
issue, and that will be the subject of a good deal of debate and 
scrutiny as we go forth in the coming weeks.
  Finally, there is the question of whether or not it ought to be our 
purpose to dictate at all what direction the Attorney General should 
take. How is it that we put ourselves in a position to say we know 
better than she does the circumstances that might dictate the 
appointment of yet another special prosecutor? She has 25 FBI agents 
and a grand jury investigating all of this. She is reviewing the 
matters, I am sure, on a daily basis. What do we have? So far, we only 
have newspaper reports and the reports on all of the nightly networks. 
It is on that basis that some of our colleagues have already concluded 
an independent counsel is warranted.
  It is arrogant in the least to say we know better than the Attorney 
General on this issue and to dictate to her that she should appoint a 
special prosecutor in spite of whatever facts she may have available to 
her today.

[[Page S2489]]

  So, Mr. President, with regard to all four of these questions, I hope 
our colleagues will take great care as they vote tomorrow morning.
  There is one other procedural matter unrelated to substance that I 
think is also curious. The resolution offered by our colleagues on the 
Republican side is a congressional resolution requiring a vote in the 
House and a signature by the President of the United States. That is 
curious. Why is it that this body would offer a resolution asking for 
an independent counsel and then put it in a form which requires a 
Presidential signature? I am skeptical about the motivation in that 
regard as well.
  For all these reasons--taste, timeliness, scope, attitude, not to 
mention the resolution itself in the form that it takes--I certainly 
hope my colleagues will vote against the very maligned, poorly worded, 
extraordinarily ill-timed, narrowly drawn resolution offered by our 
colleagues and simply join us in restating what current law already 
requires. It is for the Attorney General to make that determination 
and, if she makes it, to recognize that scope ought to be as broad as 
she needs to make it, even including Congress, if that may be required.
  I yield the floor and I, given the resolution already adopted, call 
upon the Chair for the final issuance of the day.

                          ____________________