[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 31 (Thursday, March 19, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2249-S2250]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       TAXPAYER FUNDS AND THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LEGAL DEFENSE

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today not only as a 
concerned citizen but also as a concerned lawmaker. As the chairman of 
the appropriations subcommittee which oversees the White House budget, 
I have some serious concerns about the taxpayer funds being used to pay 
for the President's personal legal defense.
  In addition, I have to also state that I am concerned about the lack 
of response to committee requests. Specifically, on March 3, a request 
was made to the White House from this committee to provide responses to 
two simple questions: First, has the size of the legal staff within the 
Executive Office of the President, funded by appropriated money, 
changed significantly between fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998? 
And, second, what is the current specific number of lawyers detailed to 
the Executive Office, and has that number changed significantly during 
this time?
  In a recent report, Mr. President, it appears that the cadre of 
attorneys at the White House has ballooned from 4 to 39 in just the 
last year and a half or 2 years. Fully one-tenth, according to that 
newspaper article, one-tenth of the White House budget now goes to pay 
those attorneys. A number of them were transferred from other agencies. 
And in this year's budget request from those agencies, they are asking 
for a full FTE for those attorneys.
  It appeared at the time that this information was both readily 
available and easy to provide, yet the White House has not given us any 
specifics. As of about a half an hour ago, we did get some partial 
answers but not nearly clear enough. During this same time, I continued 
to get Members and constituents asking me, as the chairman of the 
Treasury Subcommittee which appropriated the White House's budget, to 
provide them with some answers.

  Finally, on this past Friday, March 13, I wrote a letter in an 
attempt to get a response from the White House. In that letter I 
requested that I receive the information by them by 12 o'clock 
yesterday, March 18. In that letter, I also asked the White House to 
provide me with a list of the total number of attorneys detailed to all 
of the Executive Office and from which agency they came. Yesterday, the 
subcommittee received a call from the General Counsel's Office stating 
that we would receive that information by 9 o'clock this morning. And 
as I have mentioned, we did receive a partial answer.
  So now it is March 19, Mr. President, exactly 16 days after the 
initial request for information was made, and we still do not have the 
full answer. We are now preparing to do a hearing, as many of my 
colleagues know, Mr. President. I believe the American taxpayers have 
the right to ask some specific questions.
  The 12 attorneys that were so-called ``borrowed'' from the other 
agencies to help the President with his personal legal problems command 
very good salaries for which we expect them to do work in keeping with 
the mission of their agency and for what they were hired to do.
  What I would like to ask the Executive Office is, was the work of 
those attorneys in their agencies important? If it was important, then 
who is doing their work while they are temporarily borrowed or 
reassigned to the Executive Office? And if it was not important

[[Page S2250]]

enough to keep them at their job, why did we hire them in the first 
place in the agencies?
  What concerns me here is that as an appropriator I have the 
responsibility to follow up on these matters, and I take that very 
seriously. I do not think we are asking anything unreasonable and 
certainly do not want to just pile on the President. But this is 
taxpayer money and we have a right to make sure it is being spent 
wisely. We need to verify that the White House is not using 
appropriated funds for the President's personal legal defense. It is 
already illegal for any Government entity to use appropriated funds for 
anything other than what Congress appropriated the money.
  In addition, there are many Government regulations from the Office of 
Government Ethics and the Justice Department which support the position 
that Government attorneys are to provide their services for Government 
interests only and not personal ones. That seems pretty clear and 
pretty well cut and dry to me. I do not request the answers to the 
questions that I believe are unnecessary. And I do not make frivolous 
requests. These are very important questions, plain and simple.
  Finally, Mr. President, I announce that our committee intends to hold 
a hearing on the Executive Office's fiscal year 1999 request before the 
Easter recess and fully expect their response to this inquiry prior to 
that hearing.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the letter that we did send to Mr. Erskine Bowles, the Chief of Staff 
to the President, on March 13, 1998.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Appropriations,

                                   Washington, DC, March 13, 1998.
     Mr. Erskine B. Bowles,
     Chief of Staff to the President,
     White House, Washington, DC
       Dear Mr. Bowles: This letter is in reference to the size of 
     the legal staff at the Executive Office of the President 
     (EXOP). As you are aware, there has been recent public 
     concern about the use of appropriated funds for the private 
     legal defense of the President.
       As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Treasury and General 
     Government, which funds the Executive Office of the 
     President, I have a responsibility to respond to these 
     concerns. I understand that my staff has made repeated 
     requests to the Office of Administration for information 
     relating to this issue, for which the office has not provided 
     a response, but instead excuses and delays.
       Specifically, my staff has requested that the following 
     questions be answered: Has the size of the legal staff within 
     all of EXOP, funded by appropriations, changed significantly 
     during FY1997 and FY1998? And, what is the current number of 
     Justice lawyers detailed to EXOP and has that number changed 
     significantly during FY1997 and FY1998? In addition, I want 
     to know the total number of lawyers detailed to all EXOP 
     agencies and their detailing agency. Your responses should 
     include all of the agencies falling under the EXOP and 
     provide the specific FTE counts with a breakout of the 
     employee and detail classification by EXOP agency.
       I remind you that my staff acts on behalf of the 
     Appropriations Committee and I expect that any request they 
     make to you for information to be dealt with expeditiously. 
     Because this request is now more than a week old, I expect 
     that this information will be on my desk by March 18, 1998 at 
     12:00 p.m.
           Sincerely,

                                      Ben Nighthorse Campbell,

                               Chairman, Subcommittee on Treasury,
                                           and General Government.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and ask unanimous consent that I may 
speak for 5, 6 minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________