[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.

                          ____________________