[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 131 (Friday, September 26, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8040-H8043]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE SYSTEM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] is 
recognized for 30 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I want to just say that I support fully 
the efforts of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon]. I certainly was 
honored to be at the press conference earlier this week when we saw a 
man who actually dared to look ahead to the next century and dared to 
challenge what the existing status quo is and say, we can do better; we 
as a country can demand more from our Government, we can demand more 
from our tax collectors, and we can prepare for the 21st century now. 
And I think my colleague has got a great idea.
  I also want to comment, though, on some statements that were made 
earlier by our friends on the other side of the aisle regarding what 
they claim are their efforts to clean up the campaign finance system.
  We heard one after another come up expressing shock and sadness over 
the current state of the campaign finance system. And it reminded me of 
an old song that I used to listen to in the 1970's. It was by the 
Stylistics, and the song was called ``Make Up To Break Up.'' I think we 
can adapt the music to that song to something the Democrats could sing, 
and they could call it ``Make Laws To Break Laws.''
  I say that because here we have a group of people that have profited 
from what the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles 
Times, Newsweek have chronicled as perhaps the greatest fund-raising 
abuses in the history of this republic, who are now trying to paint 
themselves as reformers.
  I do not fear new laws. I do not fear a campaign finance overhaul. I 
think it is good. I think it is good for us to reassess time in and 
time out what is best for this country. But what I do fear is the level 
of hypocrisy and disingenuousness that makes Americans cynical about 
the type of government that they have in Washington, DC.
  Here we have an unprecedented abuse of campaign finance laws by a 
group of people who are now saying, ``Let us make some more laws,'' 
instead of saying, ``Let us abide by the laws we already have on the 
books and hold those people accountable that broke the law in 1996.''
  The news people have told us sordid tales about how the DNC, the 
Democratic National Committee, laundered money through organizations 
and improperly used Federal agencies to help in their reelection 
efforts. In fact, the Washington Post, New York Times, Newsweek, and 
others have told about how the Democrats used the Energy

[[Page H8041]]

Department improperly, the CIA improperly, the National Security 
Committee improperly, the Commerce Department improperly, the FBI 
improperly, the office of the Presidency improperly, the office of the 
Vice Presidency improperly, the INS improperly, and how they use other 
agencies improperly, also.
  The New York Times took it a step further this past week. In an 
editorial, the New York Times wrote that neither Janet Reno nor the 
President could any longer be trusted on the issue of campaign abuse 
inquiries. Why? Because the same newspapers have reported that the DNC 
funneled money to Teamsters; that the DNC used the CIA, an agency that 
is supposed to protect this country and not get involved in politics, 
but the DNC used the CIA to pressure national security officials to let 
an international fugitive into the White House for a fund-raiser.
  The Democrats wanted an international fugitive, who had already been 
kept out of the White House by the National Security Council, they 
wanted to get them in by strong-arm tactics on the CIA. This is 
absolutely incredible. And yet, these same people are now claiming that 
they are the champions of reform.
  I am sure a lot of my colleagues have heard about how the Democratic 
National Committee in the White House made phone calls from the White 
House to raise money improperly, or how they had all these coffees. The 
Democratic Senator in the hearing said that he counted 103 fund-raiser 
coffees at the White House. And yet, after the Democrats first denied 
that it ever happened and then said, ``Well, we cannot remember whether 
it happened,'' next they said, ``Well, maybe it did happen. But even if 
it did happen, it was not a violation of the law.'' And yet the Los 
Angeles Times reported this morning that, in a bluntly worded memo back 
in 1993, the White House's own attorney, the President's chief counsel, 
Judge Abner Mikva, instructed the White House officials that it was 
illegal, that it was illegal to make phone calls from the White House, 
and that it was improper and illegal to raise money at the White House.

                              {time}  1445

  Now what do we see from the news media, the TV news media? Because 
there is a big difference. The print media is actually following these 
stories and bringing it to the forefront, but for some reason Dan 
Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, and those on the nightly news do 
not want to get it out.
  What are they telling us? What they are telling us is this is an old 
law, this is an old law like the Bill of Rights. Those are old laws. 
The Magna Carta, that one is an old law, too, but this law is over 100 
years old, so it certainly cannot apply to the White House. Jeepers, 
this law is over 100 years old. What does that have to do with 
anything?
  The President's own attorney said in 1993 that it is illegal under 
this old law to raise money at the White House, that it is illegal for 
the Democrats to urge fundraising calls at the White House, that it is 
illegal for the Democrats to have the President hold coffees at the 
White House, illegal, illegal, illegal on all counts, according to the 
President's own attorney in 1993.
  Why do we not hear that on the evening news? Why do they instead talk 
about how it is an old law that has never been applied? I do not know 
why. Why cannot the evening news and the Democrats be as responsible as 
the New York Times and the Washington Post and the print media?
  I mean certainly I understand the Democrats, why they do not want all 
these illegalities to get out, because every one of them, every person 
that sits in this Chamber and goes up to that microphone, they got sent 
from the Democratic National Committee, profited either directly or 
indirectly from these illegal activities. It is chronicled in the New 
York Times, Washington Post.
  What I do not understand is why the evening news and why CNN cannot 
report it the way the print media has reported it, and it has been this 
way from the beginning.
  I do not know what their agenda is, I do not care what their agenda 
is, all I care about is Americans are informed, and if Americans in the 
end do not care that their Government officials are breaking laws and 
improperly using national security functions for their own partisan 
purposes, then let Americans have the government they deserve.
  I have got to tell my colleagues, I do not care whether a Republican 
does it or whether a Democrat does it, if it is illegal, they need to 
be held accountable. And, speaking about Republicans, I got to tell 
Members I was a little bothered this past week when the Republicans 
decided that they were going to stop the hearings in the other Chamber. 
They were just beginning to get information out about documents being 
shredded, about the CIA improperly being used, but some people have 
suggested, and I hope it is not true, that those Republicans were 
concerned that the bright light of disclosure may also have shone down 
harshly on them.
  Let me tell my colleagues, if that is the case, too bad, let it all 
out. Let us examine the Democrats and the Republicans and clean up the 
system. It is the only way we are going to restore confidence in this 
system.
  Today the first speaker came on the floor, and he came on the floor 
talking about how the Democrats should be congratulated for bringing 
the issue of campaign abuses to the forefront. Congratulated for what? 
I mean that is like Marv Albert walking out after his trial yesterday 
and saying, ``Hey, I deserve credit for bringing sexual abuse to the 
forefront.'' Give me a break. It is a joke. Who are they trying to 
fool? What have they done to bring campaign finance to the forefront?
  Well, the New York Times wrote in a headline on September 10, 1997, 
``Democrats Scammed $2 Million To Aid Candidates, Records Show.'' 
Another front page article in the New York Times, same day, says ex-
party leader admits arranging access but defends the interventions. 
Democrat tells Senate panel he set up CIA session, and the GOP press 
inquiry, says of a Democratic Party contributor, ``I think it is 
important for us to recognize there are good Democrats out there that 
do want to contribute to the Democratic Party because they believe in 
what the party is doing.''
  And that is fine. Those people should not be afraid to contribute to 
the Democratic Party in the future, but unfortunately now they have to 
be afraid of it because they unfortunately were put in a money scheme 
where $2 million was skimmed of their money in the wrong accounts. One 
Democratic Party contributor who requested anonymity said, ``Whoever 
did this should go to jail, this is illegal, and they knew it.''
  Now what does the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, 
Donald Fowler, say before the committee? He said, ``I have no memory of 
any conversations with the CIA.'' This was talking about access for 
donors. So that is one thing they did to bring campaign abuses to the 
forefront.
  Here is another thing they did that they are so proud of to bring 
campaign abuses to the forefront. This was in the Washington Post on 
September 19, 1997, where the headline says the United States says that 
Carey aides used the Democratic National Committee and the AFL-CIO 
consultants, plead guilty to funneling money to Teamsters' reelection 
campaign. And the Washington Post quotes in the body of this, which I 
guess again Democrats are proud to bring this to the forefront, they 
say, ``Both the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, and the 
Clinton-Gore reelection committee agreed to seek contributions to the 
Carey campaign in exchange for Teamsters' donations to the DNC.'' The 
Washington Post.
  That, my friends, that, Mr. Speaker, is illegal. It is called money 
laundering, and if they want to take pride in that, so be it.
  What else have the Democrats done to bring campaign abuses to the 
forefront which they are so proud of? Well, the New York Times, they 
chronicle in their editorial about how the Democratic National 
Committee had an open door for an international fugitive, and this is 
what they wrote about this sordid tale of the Democratic National 
Committee using improper influence over the Committee on National 
Security and the CIA to get international fugitives into White House 
fund-raisers. The New York Times wrote on September 19, 1997, ``He was 
affirming that

[[Page H8042]]

in the shadowy reaches of the international business world it was 
believed accurately that during 1996 dubious entrepreneurs could buy 
White House audiences, particularly if they did not quibble about the 
cost of a ticket.'' And the New York Times went on to write in their 
editorial, September 19, 1997, ``that so many high level people even 
took the party's role into consideration is one of the most shocking 
lapses of judgment.''
  Mr. Speaker, some people might be asking why am I on the floor 
talking about this. This is not one of my top issues. I am on Committee 
on Government Reform and Oversight, but I would not be down here if I 
had not heard for a week people on the other side of the aisle beating 
their chest in self-righteous indignation about how they were the only 
ones who cared about campaign finance abuses. It is absolutely 
ridiculous. There is no moral equivalency here, there are no editorials 
like this talking about access being bought through national security 
people. This is an unprecedented level of abuse in fundraising, and yet 
these same people are trying to change the subject. They are talking 
about making new laws instead of keeping the laws they already passed.

  I got to say it would be like Princess Diana's driver coming back 
from the dead, holding a press conference and saying, you know what we 
really need to do? We really need to lower the speed limit in tunnels 
in Paris, or we really need to toughen up the drunk driver laws. Wrong. 
You need to abide by the laws that are already on the book. Do not try 
to change the subject. Do not try to point fingers at somebody else. 
Let us look at the issue before us, let us look at the laws already on 
the book, let us look at the laws been on the books for over 100 years 
and just abide by those laws instead of making new ones.
  We have more things the Democrats did that they are proud of bringing 
campaign finance to the forefront. A September 19 New York Times 
article says, ``Oilman Says He Got Access by Giving Democrats Money.'' 
OK. We had our second speaker come on the floor today talking about how 
anguished he was that money bought access in committees in this House. 
Well, some of them even gave $5,000, $10,000. What he did not tell us 
was the rest of the story about how he got dollars from special 
interests pumped into campaigns across the country from extremist 
groups that wanted to write in their own provisions in environmental 
legislation.
  What did this international fugitive that got White House access 
improperly say at the end of his experience? He said, ``I think next 
time I will give $600,000,'' because he was commenting, he said 
$300,000 to get access but he still did not get his pipeline. So his 
only comment was, ``I think next time I will give $600,000.''
  We also have some more articles: New York Times, Wednesday, September 
10, an editorial. They say Mr. Fowler's selective memory--now he is the 
chairman of the Democratic Committee, past chairman, and the editorial 
in the New York Times quoted yesterday's testimony yet again, abuses 
that occurred were solely the responsibility of the Democratic Party 
and not the White House. The guy wanted to say, now that Mr. Fowler has 
spoken, the committee needs to press further into the White House's 
role in running the campaign. The President is under more pressure than 
ever to step forward and explain how he could have let the system spin 
out of control. Also, those leisurely investigators at the Justice 
Department need to explain why they are so far behind the newspapers 
and this Senate committee.
  Now this is fascinating, talking about how the Justice Department is 
behind news reporters. Do my colleagues know we do not find out until 
the Washington Post broke it on September 3 that the White House and 
the Democratic National Committee has illegally shifted soft money into 
hard money accounts? If we had known that 90 days ago, there would 
already have been a special prosecutor today, but the Attorney General 
has been saying we cannot do it because we do not have the information, 
and yet there was an administrative bungling, some would say an 
administrative coverup, at the FBI and at the Justice Department.
  We have to depend on news reporters from the Washington Post and the 
New York Times and the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Times to 
get information because our Government is failing us, and it is failing 
us because obviously there is such a close link between the Justice 
Department and the White House that they do not want to investigate 
their boss. I guess I can understand that. I guess if people in my 
office were responsible for investigating me, I might be a little 
worried. It does not make sense. That is why the New York Times and 
other newspapers across America have been talking about the need for 
the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to look into this.
  In fact, the New York Times earlier this week wrote, ``Janet Reno and 
the President can no longer be trusted to look into these abuses.'' And 
I think that is a sad statement; I think things have happened with this 
Attorney General that would even make John Mitchell blush. Of course 
John Mitchell was the Attorney General that covered up for Richard 
Nixon, a Republican who had quite a few fundraising abuses of his own. 
And that is why we need independents in Government, that is why we need 
a third party, not a partisan Republican, not a partisan Democrat, but 
somebody on the outside that can look into these abuses and see how 
American democracy was subverted in 1996 by some of the shadiest 
practices in the Democratic National Committee that have ever, ever 
occurred in this democracy.
  I have a few more posters, Mr. Speaker, but two that I want to show I 
think lie at the heart of this growing scandal. One of them was just an 
absolutely shameful episode where a former White House official 
testified about the pressure she received from the Democratic National 
Committee and the CIA to let an international fugitive in the White 
House.

                              {time}  1500

  In her testimony, she talked about how Energy Department officials 
and the CIA pressured her as a national security officer to let this 
international fugitive in that was wanted for $3 billion in 
embezzlement.
  What happened was the Democratic National Committee went to the 
National Security Council and said we need to let this international 
fugitive in the White House. The National Security Council said ``no.'' 
This lady said ``no,'' and Sheila Heflin is her name, and then the 
Democratic National chairman hung up the phone, called Bob, that is all 
he is identified as, Bob at the CIA, and asked Bob to call the National 
Security Council to tell them to let this person in the White House.
  The CIA called the National Security Council and said, ``go ahead, 
let this guy in the White House.'' And to her credit, this White House 
official once again said ``no, this is improper.''
  We learned later about meetings between the international fugitive 
and the chairman of the National Security Council, or the chairman of 
the Democratic National Committee. And he had a meeting with him and 
wrote down in his notes ``Go to CIA, Bob.'' Wrote down notes, ``Call 
the CIA to get this person in.''
  The New York Times wrote on September 18 testimony from Sheila 
Heflin, and this is what she said, this ex-White House official, who 
was pressured by the CIA to let an international fugitive in the White 
House, ``I was shocked. I said what the hell is going on? Why are you 
guys working with Fowler at the Democratic National Committee?''
  It is absolutely unbelievable, and I hope it is unprecedented. I do 
not know if it is or not.
  Now, what did the chairman of the Democratic National Committee say 
to these investigators when they had notes that he wrote down saying 
``Go to CIA, Bob''?
  What he said to them was, ``I have no recollection of talking to 
him.'' Is that not amazing? I have been thinking for the past couple of 
weeks about bringing a bill called the National Amnesia Relief Act, 
because I really do think there is something in Washington, DC, that if 
you mix water, normal tap water, with a subpoena, amnesia ensues. 
Because I have heard more people on the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight come before our

[[Page H8043]]

committee and say ``I have no recollection of that event. I have no 
recollection. I have no recollection of that.'' Everybody has been 
doing it.
  That is their only defense. It is shocking. It is sad. They know. 
They know that Americans are not that dumb, and I am surprised they 
continue to insult us.
  This is a note that the chairman of the Democratic National Committee 
had on paper that was brought up at the hearings. He wrote a note to 
himself. It is a simple note. It says ``go to CIA.'' That is Democratic 
National Committee Chairman Donald Fowler's handwritten note reminding 
himself to use the CIA to intervene on behalf of an international 
fugitive for Democratic Party fundraising.
  Now, let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker. If I was in a meeting 
with an international fugitive and that international fugitive wanted 
to get into the White House, and he asked me to call the CIA, and I 
wrote down on a note, ``Go to CIA,'' and then I went to the CIA, and 
then I called the Committee on National Security, and then I get this 
international fugitive into the White House where I get him to give 
$300,000 to the White House, I think I would remember. But somehow in 
Washington, DC, inside the beltway, if you mix normal tap water with a 
subpoena, amnesia ensues.
  ``Go to CIA.'' It is pretty clear. ``Go to CIA.'' That is so 
straightforward that even somebody who graduated from the University of 
Alabama like myself can understand it. ``Go to CIA.'' That means 
improperly use your position as Democratic National Committee chairman 
to go to the Central Intelligence Agency to get an international 
fugitive an audience with the President of the United States of America 
for improper purposes.
  Do not tell me you do not remember. It is offensive to be told time 
and time again about how these people do not remember how they may have 
broken the law. It is offensive when we find out on the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight that 900 Americans' FBI files were 
improperly obtained by the White House staff by a man named Craig 
Livingston and then have Craig Livingston, Craig Livingston's bosses, 
and Craig Livingston's supervisors tell us that nobody knows who hired 
Craig Livingston.
  I remember, I was asking him, Mr. Livingston, you said you always 
wanted to work at the White House, that this was the dream of your 
life, right? He said ``yes.''
  So we asked him, when you got that faithful call that morning that 
said, Mr. Livingston, you are coming to work at the White House, who 
called you?
  He said, ``I cannot recall.''
  And then we asked the supervisor who fired Mr. Livingston, who said 
he was responsible for Mr. Livingston's actions. We said who hired Mr. 
Livingston, this man who improperly obtained 900 FBI files? ``I do not 
remember.''
  If it were not such a tragedy, you know, it would be funny. But it 
seems like everybody has sort of lost their memory. They forgot who 
hired the guy who improperly seized 900 FBI files. They forgot that 
they wrote notes telling them to go to the CIA, the Central 
Intelligence Agency, to get an international fugitive into the White 
House. They forgot if they made any phone calls, they do not think they 
did, but maybe they made a phone call or two from the White House and 
then they find out they made 46 phone calls. Oh, OK, maybe we made 46. 
They find out they made over 100, and they say maybe I made over 100 
phone calls, but they are not illegal. This is an old law. But they 
forgot their own counsel in 1993, Abner Mikva, said it is illegal to 
raise money?
  The White House, it is time for people's memories to be restored. It 
is time for America's confidence in the U.S. Congress to be restored. 
It is time for America's confidence in their President to be restored, 
and it is time for America's confidence in the judicial system and in 
the Justice Department to be restored. And the only way to do that is 
for us to stop playing the type of games that have been played this 
week by people that are doing motions to adjourn, to supposedly show 
how much they care about these campaign fundraising abuses, and instead 
demand that the Attorney General do what she should have done, 
according to the New York Times, months ago, and get somebody 
independent to go shake up some of these people to get their memories 
jarred so we can figure out why, in the words of the New York Times, 
access to the White House to international undesirables was so 
prevalent during the 1996 campaign.
  It does not matter if we are Democrats or Republicans, liberals or 
conservatives, we have a responsibility to ask the tough questions, 
even if we may not like the questions. I ask my friends on the other 
side of the aisle to start doing that.
  I guess my confidence in some of these people calling for campaign 
finance reform maybe would be stirred a little bit if I would have one 
Democrat stand up and say, ``yes, I too am concerned.'' But they are 
not doing it. They are concerned about stonewalling, and until they 
change their concern, then I am afraid America will be worse for it.

                          ____________________