[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 36 (Wednesday, March 19, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2491-S2499]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPOINTMENT OF AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF
ILLEGAL FUNDRAISING
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, under the previous order, we now have an
hour of debate equally divided, and I have been designated as the
manager to control the time on this side. I do not see a colleague yet
who will control the time on the other side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to Senate Joint Resolution 22 for 1 hour, with 30 minutes under
the control of the distinguished Senator from Utah, 20 minutes under
the control of Senator Leahy, and 10 minutes under the control of
Senator Byrd.
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 Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, some general observations prior to
getting into the details of this resolution, I think, are in order. As
this matter has come before the Nation in the form of press reports,
television commentary, newspaper analyses, et cetera, something that is
very disturbing to me has happened. That is, a single cloak of
suspicion regarding illegalities and improprieties has been cast over
all aspects of anything relating to campaign financing, campaign
fundraising, and campaign expenditures. Somehow, anything related to
raising money or
[[Page S2492]]
spending money in a campaign has now become tainted, and we find people
in the press and people in this Chamber casting aspersions that, in my
view, are inappropriate and uncalled for.
I would like to set the terms of the discussion in this fashion. I
suggest that, of course, the first dividing line is between that which
is legal and that which is illegal. Many times in the press reports no
one is making this dividing line. They are attacking anything dealing
with fundraising as if it were all the same and all in the same pot. We
should make it clear, we should understand that many of the things that
are done for political fundraising are perfectly legal and, in my view,
perfectly appropriate, while there are other things that are clearly
illegal, and obviously anything illegal is not appropriate.
If I may, I was disturbed by some of the comments made on this floor
with respect to the actions of the majority leader, primarily by the
minority leader. The suggestion was left in the minds of some people
that the majority leader was being accused of doing something illegal
or improper by urging people to attend a Republican fundraiser and
urging people to support the Republican Party. Not only was it not
illegal nor was it improper, it was perfectly appropriate for the
majority leader of the Republican Party to engage in this kind of
activity. Just as, to be completely fair about it, in my view it was
perfectly appropriate and perfectly proper for the senior Senator from
Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], in his role as the general chairman of the
Democratic National Committee, to engage in fundraising activity on
behalf of the Democratic Party in the last campaign. The Senator from
Connecticut has not been attacked on the floor, as the majority leader
was, but he has been attacked in the press, as people have tried to
cast the cloak of impropriety that I described over all fundraising
activities.
I will stand here and defend the right of the senior Senator from
Connecticut to do what he has done on behalf of the Democratic National
Committee as being perfectly appropriate as well as legal, just as I
defend the right of the majority leader for what he has done in
fundraising activities that are perfectly appropriate as well as legal.
Now, on the legal side of the line there have been activities that
have taken place that, in my view, while legal, are not appropriate. It
is, perhaps, legal for the President to have had the kind of extensive
contact with campaign donors in the White House that we have seen
reported in the press. The President has suggested that every President
has met donors in the White House, and therefore this is perfectly OK.
I will agree, once again, that previous Presidents have on occasion met
with donors to their party or to their particular campaigns while in
the White House. It is my personal opinion that the scale and the
organized effort that went into bringing people into the White House,
whether it is for overnights in the Lincoln bedroom, organized and
orchestrated by the President's own hand, or for the coffees, as they
were called, has reached a level of unprecedented pattern of activity,
and I consider it to be inappropriate.
I will stipulate that it apparently was not illegal. That does not
mean we should not comment about it, we should not express our opinions
about its appropriateness. But, clearly, it does not call for the
appointment of an independent counsel. It is something we can talk
about in the political arena. It is on the legal side of the line. If
we think it is inappropriate, we should say so. If we think the pattern
of activity in this area is just overwhelmingly improper, we have the
right to say so. But we must recognize, once again, that some of that
activity may clearly not have been illegal.
Drawing the line and coming over to the side of that which is
illegal, I find, once again, there are degrees of illegality. Let me
give you an example that has been heavily reported in the press: the
receipt of a $50,000 check by Maggie Williams, the chief of staff to
the First Lady, while Ms. Williams was in the White House. That
apparently is illegal.
Naturally, we take breaking of the law seriously. I don't think we
need an independent counsel, however, to investigate Maggie Williams
accepting a $50,000 check while in the White House, and I don't think
it is worth some of the furor that has been created in the press. If
she broke the law in that instance, I think the Justice Department and
the FEC, whoever is the appropriate legal authority, can handle that
without any difficulty and does not require an independent counsel and,
frankly, in my view, may not even require the tremendous hue and cry
that has risen in this area in the press.
Again, I do not mean to minimize someone who violates a regulation or
restriction, but there is a difference between violations that are
either inadvertent, relatively innocent or springing out of a lack of
understanding of the rules to those violations that, in my view, are
truly sinister. We should not be talking about an independent counsel
unless we have moved from the legal side of campaign funding and those
things that are perfectly appropriate, toward those things that are
perhaps inappropriate and improper, across the line to those violations
that are inadvertent or relatively minor. We still don't have the
necessity of calling for an independent counsel until we cross over
into the territory of those infractions that are truly sinister and
have serious implications about misuse of power in very high places.
It is my opinion that there have been enough violations in very high
places in areas that I think are truly sinister that an independent
counsel is, indeed, called for. But before I get into the details of
that, I want to make my position perfectly clear that I do not think we
should appoint an independent counsel because people in the press, or
people in this Chamber, get all exercised about activities in the three
areas I have just described. None of them is serious enough to justify
an independent counsel. Let's focus on the fourth area I have
described, which I consider to be the truly sinister areas.
Mr. President, with that general statement and overview, I am
prepared now to turn to my colleague from Michigan and yield such time
to him as he may require from his 30 minutes so that we keep the time
balanced in this debate.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Utah.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator for his invariable courtesy. I ask
unanimous consent that I be yielded 10 minutes. Senator Leahy is not
yet here, but I ask that, I am sure with his approval.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we will be voting on two resolutions later
this morning. The first resolution, that of the majority leader, is a
clearly partisan document, for a number of reasons which I will get
into in a moment. The second resolution, which Senator Leahy and I have
introduced, intends to carry out the spirit and the purpose of the
independent counsel law without prejudging the Attorney General review
and, unlike the first resolution of the majority leader, the
alternative resolution includes allegations against Members of
Congress. The majority leader's resolution, the first resolution we
will be voting on, does not in its final clause, its action clause,
make reference to congressional campaigns, but only to the Presidential
campaign.
The second resolution avoids prejudging the Attorney General's
review, urges that the review be carried out without any political
favoritism or any political pressure, and, perhaps most important,
includes in that review Members of Congress and allegations against
Members of Congress.
The first resolution is a partisan document for a number of reasons.
First, it mentions Democratic problems exclusively. Second, it omits
what it should include, which is a review of activities of Members of
Congress. And, third, it includes what it should omit, which is a
prejudgment of the process of the law that it seeks to invoke.
The independent counsel law provides that the Attorney General, upon
receipt of certain specific information from a credible source against
certain groups, including Members of Congress, shall take certain
actions. It doesn't prejudge that action. The independent counsel law
doesn't say that the Attorney General, in the absence of specific
information from a credible source, will seek an independent counsel.
It is only when those first two steps are
[[Page S2493]]
taken where she determines that there is specific information from a
credible source that then the independent counsel law says she shall
seek or, in the case of Members of Congress or other than the specific
covered officials, she may seek an independent counsel.
The purpose of this law, in which I have been so deeply involved with
Senator Cohen as my Republican counterpart in now three
reauthorizations, the purpose of this law is to get an independent
investigation of top Government officials at either end of Pennsylvania
Avenue free from the taint of politics. That is the purpose of this
law, to try to remove the allegations which swirl too often in election
campaigns, or otherwise, that could involve criminal activities, to
remove the consideration of those allegations against certain
individuals and groups from partisan politics.
The independent counsel law, as I said, covers really three groups.
First, there are covered officials--the President, Vice President,
Cabinet officials, a few named others. Where there is specific
information from a credible source that a crime may have been committed
by one of these covered officials, then the Attorney General, if she
finds those things have occurred, she must seek an independent counsel.
The second group is other persons where she might have a conflict of
interest.
And the third group is Members of Congress, where, in the case the
first steps have been taken and there is specific information from a
credible source, then she may, if she determines it is in the public
interest, seek an independent counsel. It is that third group which is
omitted from the majority leader's resolution.
The law specifically provides for certain congressional participation
through the Judiciary Committee. This is very important as the Supreme
Court, in upholding this law in the case of Morrison versus Olson, made
special reference to the fact that the involvement of the Congress was
limited because the Supreme Court ruled under the separation of powers
doctrine that the Congress could not control the independent counsel
process. And so the Supreme Court, in the Morrison case, pointed out
that the involvement of Congress was limited to members of the
Judiciary Committee writing a letter to the Attorney General which, in
turn, would trigger a report from her within 30 days. That is what the
independent counsel law provides.
This resolution goes way beyond that, because it would put the Senate
on record, albeit in a nonbinding way, nonetheless the full Senate on
record, which is far different than a letter from members of the
Judiciary Committee.
I have indicated the partisan nature of the first resolution that we
are going to be voting on. Let me just give a few examples of
allegations made against Members of Congress or others than those that
would be covered by this resolution, particularly in the area of tax-
exempt organizations.
Just 2 months ago, the specially appointed investigative subcommittee
of the House Ethics Committee released a unanimous bipartisan report
relative to Speaker Gingrich.
Here is what that bipartisan report found. This is a quote:
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--these are the words of the
subcommittee--that ``it was clear that Mr. Gingrich intended''--I
emphasize the word ``intended''--``that the [American Opportunities
Workshop] and Renewing American Civilization Projects''--those are the
501(c)(3)'s--``have substantial partisan, political purposes.''
The subcommittee said--this is a bipartisan report--that ``In
addition, he was aware that political activities in the context of
501(c)(3) organizations were problematic.''
Mr. President, it is illegal for 501(c)(3) organizations to
participate in partisan activities. It violates the law. Yet, you have
here a bipartisan subcommittee of the House that finds that Mr.
Gingrich, in regard to two projects, engaged in activity that was
motivated by partisan goals and that he intended--he intended--that
those projects--I am using their words-- ``have substantial partisan,
political purposes'' and ``he was aware that political activities in
the context of 501(c)(3) organizations were problematic.''
You talk about specific information from a credible source. Pretty
specific, pretty credible, bipartisan subcommittee of the House of
Representatives, part of the ethics committee. And yet, in the first
resolution that we will be voting on, no suggestion to the Attorney
General that she review the possibility that the public interest
requires her to seek an independent counsel relative to Members of
Congress. Only the Presidential election is in the ``action'' clause in
the resolution before us. No reference to anything but Democratic
activities in the ``whereas'' clause.
There are other tax exempts that should be considered by the Attorney
General as provided for by the independent counsel--$4.5 million went
from the Republican National Committee to a tax-exempt group called
Americans for Tax Reform.
According to the Washington Post, 20 million pieces of mail were sent
out by that organization, millions of phone calls in 150 congressional
districts. They even put on television ads in States, and in one State
against a colleague of ours, attacking him for not showing up for work.
``That is wrong,'' said the television ad. This is by an organization
that is not supposed to engage in partisan activity, putting on
television ads attacking somebody who is running for Congress, for the
Senate, in this case.
A group using the same offices as Americans for Tax Reform, also a
tax-exempt group, puts on an ad on television saying the following:
``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 . . .''
That is a tax-exempt group that is not supposed to be putting on
partisan ads, but the resolution of the majority leader does not
provide that the Attorney General will look into that kind of activity
by tax exempts; only Democrats are mentioned and only the Presidential
election is mentioned.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 10 minutes have expired. Do you
wish to yield more time?
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair, and I think I better reserve the
balance of Senator Leahy's time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. President.
May I inquire how much time I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nineteen minutes and fifteen seconds.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I am interested in the comments by my friend from
Michigan. He is a distinguished lawyer. I have never had the experience
of going to law school. But I must respond out of experience relating
to the political circumstance.
He decries at length ``no reference to Members of Congress'' and
gives us an example out of the life of Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the
House, in saying, why does not the resolution call on Janet Reno to
investigate the Speaker?
Mr. President, if Janet Reno were to decide that there was further
action that needed to be taken with respect to Mr. Gingrich, I doubt
that she would run into any resistance in the White House to that
decision. I doubt that the President would think that was not a good
idea for her to do that or send her any kind of direction or subtle
hints saying, ``Do not pursue Mr. Gingrich.''
The reason we have an independent counsel operation is because the
Attorney General is indeed subject to pressure from the White House.
And there is no such pressure with reference to Members of Congress,
particularly Members of Congress of the opposing party.
In this body, both the Senator from Michigan and I sat with Dave
Durenberger. Dave Durenberger found out directly that there was no
problem in the Justice Department coming after a Member of Congress.
There are Members in this body who were here when Harrison Williams,
known as ``Pete,'' was pursued by the Justice Department and his own
party and ultimately went to jail.
In the structure of our Government, with the separation of powers,
there is
[[Page S2494]]
no pressure on the Attorney General in the executive branch that would
prevent him or her from going after a Member of the legislative branch,
but there is clear pressure within the executive branch that could
prevent an Attorney General from going after a member of the executive
branch. And that is why the independent counsel statute was created.
I think the omission from the majority leader's resolution with
respect to Members of Congress is a recognition that the independent
counsel was never intended to go after a Member of Congress and it
would be inappropriate to go after Members of Congress to put that in.
It would fundamentally change the nature of the independent counsel
circumstance.
Now, Mr. President----
Mr. LEVIN. Would the Senator yield?
Mr. BENNETT. I would be happy to.
Mr. LEVIN. When the Senator says it was never intended that the
independent counsel go after a Member of Congress, I must yield myself
2 minutes to answer that.
The law specifically provides that when the Attorney General
determines it would be in the public interest, that indeed she ``may
seek''--I am quoting the law--``an independent counsel for or relating
to Members of Congress.''
It is very specific in the law. And I just used the exact words,
reading. Members of Congress are included in this law. Indeed, it was
the current majority in this body that insisted that Members of
Congress be included in the law and wanted to make it mandatory, and
now they are left out of the resolution of the majority leader.
The ultimate resolution was to make it discretionary where the
Attorney General found it in the public interest to do so. But the
majority in this body had determined that Members of Congress be
included. They were included, left discretionary, but it is very
precise.
If I can disagree with my dear friend, it is very precise that
Members of the Congress are included in the independent counsel law
when it is determined by the Attorney General it would be in the public
interest.
I will use 1 more minute.
The pressure that the Senator from Utah talks about, which he
presumes comes from the White House--if it does--is wrong. We should
not compound any such alleged pressure if, in fact, it exists by
putting pressure on her by this legislative body. Pressure from any
source is wrong. If the White House pressures her, it is wrong.
By the way, she has shown tremendous independence, tremendous
independence when it comes to the selection of a decision to seek an
independent counsel. This Attorney General has shown no reluctance to
seek the appointment of independent counsel.
So if there is pressure, there should not be pressure from any
source, White House or Congress. That is exactly why this first
resolution, it seems to me, runs so counter to the spirit of the
independent counsel law, because it does explicitly put pressure on
her. It jumps to a conclusion as to what she should find at the end of
a process. We should not do it. If anybody else is doing it, they
should not do it. We should not do it.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank my friend from Michigan for correcting my legal
lack of understanding. And I do stand corrected and accept that
instruction.
I say to him, and to any who feel, as he apparently does, that Mr.
Gingrich should be included in this, that I would be happy to have Mr.
Gingrich included in the resolution if indeed there were evidence
suggesting there was something that had not already come out in the
proceedings that have already gone forward.
The reason I am supporting this resolution is that I feel there is
information that is being hidden within the executive branch, coming
from somewhere. I do not know whether it is coming from the White
House. I do not know whether it is coming from the executive office of
the President. But from somewhere, there seems to be some kind of
pressure being applied to the Attorney General to keep her from
proceeding with the appointment of an independent counsel, as Members
of this body individually have urged her to do, including Members of
the Democratic side of this body, who have urged the Attorney General
to proceed with the appointment of the independent counsel.
For example, the senior Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] has said
it is time for an independent counsel. I am sure my friend from
Michigan would not stand to censure the senior Senator from New York
for making that expression. He has expressed that freely, openly, and
publicly as is his right.
All the resolution does that is offered by the majority leader is
give other Members of the Senate the opportunity to make the same
expression in a vote for a sense of the Senate--not binding, not with a
force of law, simply making public the fact that they agree with
Senator Moynihan in his calling for a independent counsel.
Now, why is it that we feel there are things that need to be examined
with an independent counsel that have not been? There are many, and our
time is limited, but let me go quickly, Mr. President, to one example
of something that I think calls out for the attention of an independent
counsel. On the 13th of September, 1995, there was a meeting in the
Oval Office, not in the Democratic National Committee, not in some
other governmental office, in the Oval Office in the White House.
President Clinton, of course, was there and with him were four other
individuals--James Riady, not a Federal employee, an executive, indeed,
an owner of the Lippo Group; Bruce Lindsey, who was a Government
Federal employee and is the Deputy White House counsel; Joseph Giroir,
Lippo joint venture partner and adviser and a former partner of the
Rose Law Firm in Arkansas, again, not a Federal employee; and John
Huang, a former executive with Lippo but at the time of the meeting he
was a Federal employee. So here you have the President, two non-Federal
employees and two Federal employees. The discussion is whether or not
John Huang will move from his position at the Department of Commerce to
become vice chairman of finance of the Democratic National Committee.
So here is the discussion in the Oval Office, including the President,
regarding the future role of John Huang, taking place in the presence
of two of Mr. Huang's former associates in the private world.
Mr. Huang made that move from the Commerce Department to the
Democratic National Committee where he raised, according to the
Democratic National Committee, $3.4 million, $1.6 million of which has
had to be returned by the Democratic National Committee because they
have been determined to be either inappropriate or illegal.
Now, when you ask the question, do we know everything we need to know
about Mr. Huang and his activities stemming from that meeting in the
Oval Office presided over by the President of the United States, we
have Mr. Huang taking the fifth amendment, refusing to tell us anything
further on the grounds that it might incriminate him. He joins with
Charlie Trie, Pauline Kanchanalak, Mark Middleton, and Webster Hubbell
in taking the fifth amendment, saying they will not cooperate with the
investigation on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate them.
There are others who have not taken the fifth amendment but who have
left the country, including John H.K. Lee, Charlie Trie, Pauline
Kanchanalak, Arief and Soraya Wiriadinata, Charles DeQueljoe, and Mr.
Riady.
Of the four people who were in that meeting along with the President,
one has taken the fifth amendment and the other has left the country.
Roughly half of the money that Mr. Huang raised has already been
returned by the Democratic National Committee on the grounds that it
was either illegal or inappropriate. I think this summarizes the fact
that we need much further investigation into, (a), what was decided at
that meeting, and (b), what was done subsequent to that meeting as a
result of those decisions, but of the four non-Presidential
participants in that meeting, half of them are unavailable to us to
give us a version.
There are many more examples. I see my friend from West Virginia has
arrived. I will reserve such additional time as I have to summarize
this later, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from West
Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on March 11, this body voted 99 to 0 to
adopt a resolution that provides more than $4.3
[[Page S2495]]
million to the Committee on Governmental Affairs for the sole purpose
of investigating any and all improper or illegal activities stemming
from the 1996 federal elections. The investigation will cover the
presidential and congressional elections, and the results will be made
known to the public early next year.
I believe that one of the primary reasons the resolution had the full
support of the Senate was because of the various compromises that
succeeded in making the scope of the investigation both bipartisan and
fair. Absent those accommodations, the resolution would have been seen
by the American people as nothing more than an attempt by one party to
gain political advantage over the other.
That is why I am deeply concerned with the direction now being taken
with this measure. Unlike the resolution that received the full support
of the Senate on March 11, this resolution specifically targets for
investigation by an independent counsel the President, the Vice
President, unnamed White House officials, and the Democratic National
Committee, and it does so based on nothing more substantial than
``reports in the media.''
Mr. President, the American people are painfully aware that both
parties are guilty of abusing the campaign financing system currently
in place. But this resolution would seek to exploit--apparently for
paritsan political advantage--the actions of only a Democratic
President and the Democratic Party. Now, where is the objectivity?
Where is the objectivity in that proposition?
Even if we disregard fairness, there is simply no logical reason why
the Senate needs to be spending its time on this resolution. The simple
truth is that the law governing the appointment of an independent
counsel already provides a process that the Attorney General must
follow. That process is clearly laid out in the U.S. Code, and it does
not--I repeat, does not--include sense of the Congress resolutions.
The fact is, Mr. President, that this is an unprecedented behest.
Never before has the Congress attempted to dictate the naming of an
independent counsel. We have never passed any measure that would tell
the Attorney General, as this resolution does, that she ``should''
apply for the appointment of an independent counsel. The reason we
haven't done so is because that would unnecessarily politicize a
procedure that was expressly designed to restore public confidence
after Watergate by taking politics out of our criminal justice system.
Furthermore, I find it ironic that we are debating this resolution at
the same time that the Justice Department's Office of Public Integrity
is actively engaged in an investigation of the very matters that this
resolution seeks to have investigated. Career prosecutors are, as we
speak, already working as part of an independent task force looking
into fundraising efforts in connection with the 1996 Presidential
election. In addition, a Federal grand jury has already begun hearing
testimony in connection with campaign contributions to the Democratic
National Committee. But under the independent counsel statute, each of
those efforts would cease. There would be no further authority for the
Attorney General to convene grand juries or to issue subpoenas. Where
is the logic? Where is the logic in that, Mr. President?
The decision to invoke the independent counsel process is, by law, a
decision for the Attorney General alone to make. Let us let the law
work as it was intended. We should not, through some misguided attempt
at grandstanding, pass a resolution that serves no legitimate purpose
except to score political home runs. Such a course tends to call into
question the integrity of the Justice Department and of the entire
independent counsel process.
This resolution has not had the benefit of committee examination and
has been moved to the calendar by parliamentary device--I suppose
through rule XIV. While that may be acceptable for some measures, and
is acceptable for some measures, I feel that, on a matter this
sensitive, a committee should have certainly had the opportunity to
pass some judgment. The Congress is attempting to direct an Attorney
General, when the law specifies the decision to invoke the independent
counsel is and ought to be, by constitutional necessity, that of the
Attorney General alone.
There is a mean spirit alive in this town currently, Mr. President,
which is destructive, overly partisan and overtly partisan, and
thoroughly regrettable. We seem to have completely forgotten about the
mundane necessities of governing, like crafting a budget and dealing
with the myriad problems that face the American people.
Instead, we are engaged in a feeding frenzy, like sharks that have
tasted a little blood and hunger for more. If you have ever observed
sharks being fed red meat, you know that it is not a pretty picture.
And I am sure that the excesses of partisanship emanating from
Washington these days and being witnessed by the American people are
far from appetizing.
No one is suggesting that we turn our backs on corruption or fail to
explore wrongdoing. But I implore some in this body to cool off and to
try to get a sense of perspective on this entire matter.
Service in the U.S. Senate is a tremendous honor. Each of us has
expended great personal effort to get here, including the straining of
our personal lives in order to attain a wonderful prize, a seat in this
great body. The benefits of winning that prize include the opportunity
to participate in governing the greatest country on Earth, the United
States of America, and through the quality of that governance, to
inspire and to uplift our people.
So I urge each of my colleagues to focus on that opportunity and on
the great and long tradition of this body. Let's put aside this and all
other unwise techniques for embarrassing each other and do something
for the good of the American people. If there are those who want to
embarrass themselves by wrongdoing, they will be found out because
there are processes already at work to ferret out that information and
bring it to the full light of day. So let us leave the investigation of
campaign abuses by both political parties in the hands of the very
capable people charged with conducting them and avoid the allure of
``piling on'' for political advantage. It is time for us to remember
our real duties and our heavy responsibility to legislate and to govern
for the common good and, by that example, so encourage our President to
do the same.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I will vote against both the Republican
and the Democrat resolutions.
I hold that the Attorney General should appoint an independent
counsel to investigate alleged improprieties by Democrats and by
Republicans in fundraising for the 1996 Presidential and congressional
campaigns. I believe the public will only be reassured if an
independent counsel looks into what has been happening. The issues must
be aired in an independent, nonpartisan setting. And if there have been
violations of law, there must be consequences.
Last week, after much debate, the Senate agreed to fund the
Governmental Affairs Committee probe into illegal and improper
fundraising and spending practices in the 1996 Federal election
campaigns. A unanimous Senate believed that a credible investigation
requires that we look not only at our President, but also at ourselves.
So, too, should an independent counsel.
Senate Joint Resolution 22 suggests that the scope of the independent
counsel's investigation should be limited to the allegations of wrong-
doing by Democrats in the 1996 Presidential campaign. There is no
mention of an investigation of congressional campaigns.
Senate Joint Resolution 23 does not call for the appointment of an
independent counsel. To say again, in my view, an independent counsel
is the only entity capable of conducting an investigation without
dissolving into partisan bias. And it is the only way of proceeding
that avoids the appearance of conflict of interest.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would like to offer just few comments to
indicate why I believe the course chosen by the majority today relating
to the independent counsel is unwarranted.
First, the official responsible for initiating the appointment of an
independent counsel--Attorney General
[[Page S2496]]
Janet Reno--has maintained the highest standards of integrity and
professionalism. Second, the Attorney General has proven her
willingness to request the appointment of independent counsels in the
past when she believed the statutory standard was met. And, third, the
Attorney General has already undertaken a serious inquiry into the
campaign fundraising issues and continues to consider, as the facts
develop, whether to seek an independent counsel.
As we review the facts, we must remember that the independent counsel
statute is triggered only upon receipt of specific, credible evidence
that high-ranking Government officials listed in the statute may have
violated our criminal laws. This is an appropriately high threshold
that must be met before the process of appointing an independent
counsel can go forward. This standard is not met by vague allegations.
The law does not apply to unethical, improper, or unseemly conduct.
Rather, the statute is triggered only after the Attorney General
determines, after consulting with career Justice Department prosecutors
and engaging in a serious, deliberative process, that the statutory
test has been satisfied.
The conduct of the 1996 elections are being carefully scrutinized by
the Department of Justice. A task force comprised of career prosecutors
from the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division, supported
by over 30 FBI agents, has been assembled to explore fully the range of
issues that have been raised. This task force will determine which, if
any, of the allegations warrant criminal investigation. Of course, if
the task force receives specific evidence from a credible source that a
person covered by the Independent Counsel Act may have violated the
law, a preliminary investigation under the act would be initiated. But,
to date, the Attorney General has determined that the Department has
not received such evidence.
In short, we are at the early stages of the task force's operations
where the job is best left to career investigators and prosecutors.
What is more, under the independent counsel statute, it is the
Judiciary Committee--not the full Senate--which has the most proper
oversight role of the independent counsel process. I argued last week
that was unnecessary for the Judiciary Committee to make any
conclusions at this time as to the propriety of appointing an
independent counsel. But, a majority of the committee did exactly that
last week. Now, the full Senate has been called on to embark on an even
more unnecessary and unwarranted course by asking all Senators to--in
effect--substitute their judgement for that of the career investigators
and prosecutors. I do not believe that the members of the Judiciary
Committee who spend so much of their time overseeing Justice Department
activities could make such a judgement now--so, I certainly do not
think it possible that all the other Senators who do not sit on the
Judiciary Committee can prudently or accurately make this judgement.
Not only do we have a comprehensive task force already reviewing the
1996 campaign fundraising issues, but we also have an Attorney General
who has repeatedly shown her independence, integrity, and willingness
to call for an independent counsel. Since taking office, Attorney
General Reno has requested the appointment of at least four independent
counsels--Kenneth Starr, Donald C. Smaltz, David M. Barrett, and Daniel
S. Pearson--to investigate wrongdoing of high executive branch
officials and other individuals covered by the statute.
In short, the most prudent course today is to wait for the Justice
Department's investigation to be completed. Then, and only then, can
the need for appointment of an independent counsel can be evaluated
based on a complete and full record.
I would also add that this is consistent with how I have proceeded in
past cases. For example, in 1992, I, along with several other
Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee sent a letter to then-
Attorney General William Barr requesting that he call for an
independent counsel to investigate the possibility that high-ranking
officials engaged in obstruction of justice in the prosecution of a
particular case. I did so only after Attorney General Barr had
appointed a special counsel, indicating that the Attorney General had
already concluded that criminal conduct may have taken place. I called
for an independent counsel at that point to ensure that this
investigation be carried out by someone whose independence was clear,
rather than by a special counsel hired by the Attorney General.
Finally, we also need to keep in mind that there are some costs to
appointing an independent counsel at this time. An inquiry is already
well under way--FBI agents have been assigned to the task force and,
according to press reports, subpoenas have been issued and a grand jury
has been convened. Once an independent counsel is appointed, that
inquiry must be shut down and the independent counsel will have to
start from scratch. And as we know from past experience, independent
counsel investigations can linger for years. So if we are interested in
resolving this matter, and getting answers as soon as possible, we
ought to allow the Justice Department to go forward and put our trust
in Attorney General Reno to trigger the independent counsel statute
only if and when she deems it necessary.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. How much time remains for the Senator from Vermont?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 6\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senate Joint Resolution 22 does not advance
the administration of justice and is not authorized by the independent
counsel law. I believe it an inappropriate effort to subvert the
independent counsel process.
We spent 4 days debating this. We have yet to confirm one single
judge. We may possibly have a vote on a nominee to one of the almost
100 Federal judge vacancies before we go on our second vacation. We
have not had 1 minute of debate on a budget resolution. We have not had
1 minute of debate on the chemical weapons treaty. We have not had 1
minute of debate on the juvenile crime bill. But we spent 4 days on
this.
I would have thought that the day the President leaves for an
international summit with the President of Russia would not be an
appropriate time for attacking the President. I would have thought it a
time for coming together to demonstrate to the rest of the world that
Democrats and Republicans can work together and can at least show
support for the President of the United States as he pursues the
interests of the United States in his meetings with the President of
Russia.
That is the way we have always done it. In my 22 years here, under
the majority leadership of Mr. Mansfield, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Baker, Mr.
Mitchell, and Mr. Dole, we have always, always followed the rule that
we do not bring something onto the floor of this Senate attacking the
President of the United States as he is about to go into a summit.
Apparently, as the distinguished Senator from West Virginia said,
there is a meanness going through this town, and that rule that has
always been followed, a bipartisan rule always followed with Democratic
and Republican Presidents, always followed with Democratic and
Republican leaders, is not going to be followed here today. I think
that is unfortunate. I think it gives an unfortunate image to the rest
of the world, and it certainly is not in the best traditions of the
U.S. Senate.
It is also ironic that we are being asked to take this action today
knowing that last Thursday the Republicans and Democrats on the House
and Senate Judiciary Committees sent written requests to the Attorney
General invoking the statutory provisions that provide a limited role
for Congress in the independent counsel process.
And, of course, this resolution would call for an independent counsel
only for the President--it is restricted to the 1996 Presidential
campaign. This resolution carefully crafted so that it won't touch any
of the Republicans or Democrats in the Senate or Republicans or
Democrats in the House. In other words, we say we are like Caesar's
wife, we are above all this, we are untainted by any scandals. But go
after the President and the Vice President; and, incidentally, let's
really slam the President as he heads off to negotiate with the only
other President of a nuclear superpower. I think the resolution
[[Page S2497]]
takes too narrow a view if we are up to making demands upon the
Attorney General for an independent counsel. The resolution shields
congressional fundraising practices from investigation.
Boy, somebody is not reading the paper. It didn't make sense to try
to shield us from an investigation when the same limits were proposed
in connection with the funding resolution for the Governmental Affairs
Committee, and it does not make sense or increase our credibility with
the public now.
Indeed, today, the Washington Post had a front page story reporting
that a lobbyist for a foreign government was shaken down last summer by
the same Member of the House who now chairs their investigation into
alleged campaign fundraising abuses. Incidentally, this was not only
the lobbyist but, if this article is accurate, it even went to the
ambassador of a foreign power.
We on the Judiciary Committee and in the Congress have done all that
the statute allows with respect to the determination by the Attorney
General. The 30-day period for the Attorney General's response has
begun to run. We do not need to do anything further on this at this
time.
We ought to get about the real business of the U.S. Senate and
abandon this ill-conceived effort to instruct the Attorney General how
to proceed. She doesn't need our guidance and I do not want to derail
the investigations that are under way.
But if we have to engage in this kind of sideshow, as the President
leaves for an international summit, let us at least restrain ourselves
from seeking to pressure the head of our Federal law enforcement agency
and instead pass the alternative form of resolution that urges her to
resist political pressure and follow the law. Incidentally, unlike the
original resolution, the alternative resolution, Senate Joint
Resolution 23, does not shield the Congress from any investigation.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I appreciate the admonition by the senior
Senator from West Virginia and repeated by the Senator from Vermont
with respect to meanness. I have made every attempt during this
presentation to make sure that there is none in any of the things that
I have said, and to remind Senators in my opening comments that I think
many Members of this body have inappropriately been stigmatized by the
press and others for doing that which is perfectly appropriate and
perfectly legal.
I must once again make reference to what I consider to be an
inappropriate attack on the motives of the majority leader that was
mounted by the minority leader earlier during this debate. I think that
is inappropriate. The majority leader is acting out his good motives,
even though there may be some who disagree with him.
As to the argument that this resolution somehow exempts Members of
Congress and somehow exempts members of the Republican Party from any
action on the part of the Attorney General, I point out the effective
language of the resolution which says, ``It is the sense of Congress
that the Attorney General should make application to the Special
Division of the United States Court of Appeals to the District of
Columbia for the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate
allegations of illegal fundraising in the 1996 Presidential election
campaign.''
There is nothing in there that says she shall not exercise this right
with respect to a Member of Congress, that she shall not go after a
Republican nominee, that she shall not do any of the other things that
are simply an expression that she should do it with respect to the
Presidential campaign, and no reference in that resolve portion of even
Democrats rather than Republicans.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time to the
majority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished majority leader is
recognized.
Order for Morning Business
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately
following the stacked votes today that there be a period of morning
business until the hour of 3 p.m. today, with Senators permitted to
speak for up to 5 minutes each with the exception of the following:
Senator Daschle, or his designee, in control of up to 60 minutes;
Senator Bennett, or his designee, in control of up to 30 minutes;
Senator Brownback for up to 10 minutes; and, Senator Cleland for up to
15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today after months of media exposes and the
American people asking questions about exactly what is going on here, I
think the question that we are trying to answer today is, ``Why hasn't
Attorney General Reno appointed an independent counsel to investigate
these matters?'' Members of both parties, Democrats as well as
Republicans, have asked that question, and they can't get a
satisfactory answer. They have called on the Attorney General under the
law involving the independent counsel to appoint an independent
counsel. Senator Moynihan, Senator Feingold, and I think others in both
parties have said this is the way that we should proceed, and this
independent counsel should be appointed.
That is why we brought before the Senate Senate Joint Resesolution 22
to express the sense of this body ``that the Attorney General should
make application to the Special Division of the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia for the appointment of an
independent counsel to investigate allegations of illegal fundraising
in the 1996 Presidential election campaign.''
I cannot understand how anyone who is familiar with the language of
the independent counsel statute can disagree with this resolution. And
I have gone back and read it and reread it. I have been around when
this statute has been passed, and modified and passed again. Frankly, I
have always had some reservations about it. But it is on the books, and
it is clear when it should be activated.
That statute sets two thresholds for the process of appointing an
independent counsel. The first is whether there have been credible and
serious allegations of illegal acts by high officials. And it defines
who these high officials may be.
That doesn't mean anyone has to be presumed guilty. As long as the
allegations are credible and serious, the statute requires the Attorney
General to take action.
Clearly, that first threshold has been met by what we already know
from news reports about illegal foreign donations and the use of White
House facilities for campaign fundraising.
I need not repeat all the instances others have cited during this
debate. One expose has followed another. One admission has followed
another. One explanation or excuse is followed by another. Without
judging anyone involved, it is as clear as can be that the first
threshold of the independent counsel statute has already been met.
But if anyone disagrees with that assertion let them consider the
second threshold of the law, the second set of circumstances that
permits the Attorney General to take action. That second threshold is
the existence of a perceived conflict of interest on the part of an
Attorney General who is appointed by the President and confronted with
possible illegal activities involving the White House.
This provision was put in the independent counsel statute in 1978 in
order to extricate Attorneys General from serious situations just like
the one in which the Attorney General finds herself now. Confronted by
myriad allegations of wrongdoing within the administration, of which
she is a part, it is not her role to pass judgment on them, and it
should not be. Under the law, it is her responsibility to trigger the
court process by which an independent counsel takes over the role and
does the job which the law deliberately takes out of her hands.
Listen to the Attorney General herself on this point when she
testified, just 4 years ago, on the reenactment of the independent
counsel statute:
It is absolutely essential for the public to have
confidence in the system, and you cannot do that when there
is a conflict or an appearance of conflict in the person who
is, in effect, the chief prosecutor.
In other words, the Attorney General herself.
Who did deny that this second threshold for applying the independent
counsel has been more than met? Through no fault of her own, Attorney
[[Page S2498]]
General Reno is caught in an excruciating conflict of interest. If she
were to aggressively investigate charges of misconduct by senior
administration officials, she could be accused of excess zeal to
protect her own reputation for integrity. If, on the other hand, she
does not uncover wrongdoing, she would be accused of letting the guilty
escape because of political considerations.
To shield the Attorney General--any Attorney General--from that
predicament, and to protect the integrity of the entire Department of
Justice, is the essential and primary purpose of the independent
counsel statute.
If that is all so obvious, why then, the question might be asked, is
the Senate considering this resolution today? The answer is that we are
compelled to take this step, formally expressing the sense of this
institution, for two reasons.
First--it is quite common, and, in fact, almost always when there are
serious issues being debated that don't necessarily require a law to be
passed--the Senate expresses its collective sense on the issue of
national import. If we do not do that with regard to this matter, I
think we will be slighting our duty.
Second, this resolution is a result of our rising frustration with
what seems to be determined inaction on the part of the Attorney
General to appoint, or start the process to appoint, an independent
counsel. Like the American people, we must wonder what it will take to
jar the Department of Justice to activate the independent counsel law.
After all, the Department is not dealing with one or two frivolous
allegations. It is dealing with a steady drip, drip, drip of
revelations over a period of several months that has now become a
tainted stream of suspicion.
There is only one way to clean it up, and that is through the
appointment of an independent counsel. Let me remind my colleagues that
the purpose of such an appointment is not just to prosecute the guilty
but to clear the innocent. In neither case should that be seen as a
partisan endeavor.
Nonetheless, many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle
find fault with this resolution. They say it ought to apply to the
Congress as well. But the independent counsel statute already does
apply to Members of Congress.
If the Attorney General has received credible and serious allegations
of illegal activity by one or more Members of Congress, she is already
fully empowered to ask the Federal court to name an independent
counsel. And it has been done in the past. Believe me, it has been
done. The conflict is not between the administration and the Congress.
The Attorney General can take that action. The perceived conflict of
interest is when you have the Attorney General of the same party of the
people in control of the White House where allegations are being made.
I respectfully suggest that the effort being made here to include the
Congress in this resolution is, once again, just a distraction. That is
as polite a term as I can find for something that is irrelevant to the
Nation's concern about what we have seen happening.
But what has been the modus operandi? Every time another new, serious
allegation comes out, the alternative by the Democrats has been to
attack the people who are going to be in critical positions. Senator
Fred Thompson, who is chairman of Governmental Affairs, his motives
were impugned when we were moving through with setting up the
investigation for Governmental Affairs. Insinuations, well, this has
2,000 ramifications. And now today Dan Burton, the chairman of the
committee in the House who has a job to do, yes, attack him.
That has been the way it has been done for the last 4 years. Anytime
you get accused by somebody or somebody has a job to do, go after them.
That is what is at stake here--distraction, obfuscation, say, well,
they do it, too. No. So much of what has happened here is not normal;
it is not the way it has always been done.
That campaign is the heart of matter. The campaign has been the focus
and the forum on other issues whereas what we are trying to get at is a
very serious matter here, illegal foreign contributions. I mean even
the word espionage has been suggested in all this. We are talking about
staggering sums of money that have been raised and in unusual ways.
That campaign continues to generate media allegations about
improper--we voted on that last week--as well as illegal conduct.
If anyone is tempted to take the position of a pox on both houses, I
have news for them. It is not true that everybody in politics per se
behaves alike or ignores the law or pushes the limits of legality.
There are clearly things in the law that may be debatable, but they are
legal and they are appropriate. If we want to go back and have a
debate--and we will have a debate this year on campaign finance reform,
but before we start trying to reform the law, I think we need to look
at how do we find out what happened. Who did what? What has gone on
here?
If anyone is tempted to take that position, I think they need to
reconsider. We do not all do it, and I do not think that it is going to
work to just try to shove it off by trying to drag the Congress into
it. We are trying to get at what has happened.
The independent counsel, by the way, is not necessarily going to be a
slap at the President. In fact, that is the way to quiet this thing
down, have the process go forward, have an appropriate investigation,
find out what happened, who did what, by an independent counsel.
As a matter of fact, I am going to presume that it may not reach to
the President. I do not think all of these things involve the
President. They may not come to that conclusion in the end. But this is
the way to get at the bottom of what really has happened. So I urge my
colleagues here today do not be distracted. We have a very clear
resolution here that just says it is the sense of the Senate that the
thresholds have been met to provide for an independent counsel and that
we should do that, make it very clear what our position is and go on
with the substantive business that we have to do around here.
Some people say, how are you going to deal with the budget, less
taxes, less spending, less Washington, more freedom if you are going to
be fighting on these other things? As a matter of fact, maybe now we
are in a position to move on. We have a committee that has been funded.
They can do their investigation, their hearings. If we have an
independent counsel appointed, which clearly I think the law has
provided for, and the threshold has been met, then we can go on about
our other business.
I urge my colleagues to vote for Senate Joint Resolution 22, I
believe it is, and then vote to table the other resolution that is
pending, because it is no more than a distraction because the law
already provides for that coverage.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, do I not have a minute, 40 seconds
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 1 minute, 42
seconds.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield 1 second.
Mr. LEAHY. On the Senator's time.
Mr. LOTT. On my time. Do I have any time left or has all time on this
side expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The leader continues to have leader time.
Mr. LOTT. I thank the Chair.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have listened to the soothing words of my
good friend from Mississippi, but they do not bring out the fact the
Attorney General has already formed a task force of experienced
prosecutors to investigate whether criminal conduct took place in the
1996 Federal election campaigns involving, as well, 30 agents from the
Federal Bureau of Investigation with subpoena power and testimony
reportedly being heard before a grand jury. If a preliminary
investigation is begun under the statute and an independent counsel is
appointed, all this investigation stops, clang, like that. And to say
that we are looking at Congress is interesting. If you read Senate
Joint Resolution 22, it speaks only of investigating allegations of
illegal fundraising in the 1996 Presidential election campaign. If you
look at Senate Joint Resolution 23, which the majority leader wants
tabled, it
[[Page S2499]]
speaks of Members of Congress as well as Presidential elections. It is
very clear they do not want it going to the Members of Congress
question.
I still say I am disappointed not to hear why we have broken decades
and decades and decades of tradition to bring up something obviously
aimed directly at the President of the United States as he leaves for a
summit meeting with the President of the only other nuclear superpower.
It has never been done, it has never been allowed by majority leaders
of either Republicans or Democrats with either Republican or Democratic
Presidents. Perhaps at some point in this Congress we will go back to
the traditions of comity that we have seen before. But, in the
meantime, let us vote on this resolution, but let us also vote on
Senate Joint Resolution 23, which would include the Congress. I call on
all my colleagues to be courageous enough to speak up and say we will
support investigations of ourselves as well as the President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on the
engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading
and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the
third time, the question is on the passage of the joint resolution. The
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 32 Leg.]
YEAS--55
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith, Bob
Smith, Gordon H.
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--44
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Dodd
The joint resolution was passed.
The preamble was agreed to.
The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 22), with its preamble, reads as
follows:
S.J. Res. 22
Whereas 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 591 et seq., allows the
Attorney General to make application to the Special Division
of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia for the appointment of an independent counsel when
there is specific and credible information that there may
have been violations of Federal criminal law (other than a
class B or C misdemeanor or infraction) and the investigation
of such violations by the Department of Justice may result in
a political conflict of interest;
Whereas this Attorney General has previously exercised that
discretion to apply for the appointment of an independent
counsel to investigate the Whitewater matter on the basis of
a political conflict of interest;
Whereas there has been specific, credible information
reported in the media that officers and agents of the
Democratic National Committee and the President's reelection
campaign may have violated Federal criminal laws governing
political fundraising activities in connection with the 1996
Presidential election campaign;
Whereas, according to reports in the media, the Attorney
General has found such allegations of sufficient gravity that
she has created a task force within the Department of Justice
and convened a grand jury to further investigate them;
Whereas there has been specific, credible information
reported in the media that senior White House officials took
an active role in and supervised the activities of the
President's reelection campaign and the Democratic National
Committee in connection with the 1996 Presidential election
campaign;
Whereas there is specific, credible information reported in
the media that the decisionmaking structure and
implementation of fundraising activities carried out by the
Democratic National Committee and the President's reelection
campaign were supervised by White House officials, including
the President and Vice President; and
Whereas it is apparent that any investigation by the
Department of Justice allegations concerning the fundraising
activities of the Democratic National Committee and the
President's reelection campaign will result in a political
conflict of interest because such an investigation will
involve those senior White House officials who took an active
role in and supervised the activities of the President's
reelection campaign and the Democratic National Committee:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That it is
the sense of the Congress that the Attorney General should
make application to the Special Division of the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for the
appointment of an independent counsel to investigate
allegations of illegal fundraising in the 1996 Presidential
election campaign.
____________________