[Senate Report 105-7]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
105th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 105-7
_______________________________________________________________________
AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES BY THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
to accompany
S. RES. 39
AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES BY THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
March 10, 1997.--Ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee, Chairman
WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware JOHN GLENN, Ohio
TED STEVENS, Alaska CARL LEVIN, Michigan
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma MAX CLELAND, Georgia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Hannah S. Sistare, Staff Director and Counsel
Leonard Weiss, Minority Staff Director
Michal Sue Prosser, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
I. Introduction.....................................................1
II. Background.......................................................1
III. Committee Proceedings............................................2
IV. Discussion.......................................................2
V. Cost Estimate....................................................3
VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................4
VII. Additional Views of Senators Glenn, Levin, Lieberman, Akaka,
Durbin, Torricelli, and Cleland..................................5
VIII.Changes to Existing Law..........................................8
105th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 105-7
_______________________________________________________________________
AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES BY THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
_______
March 10, 1997.--Ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Thompson, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. Res. 39]
I. INTRODUCTION
The Committee on Governmental Affairs is seeking a
nonrecurring appropriation of $6.5 million to conduct an
investigation into allegations of improprieties in campaign
fund-raising and spending practices during 1996 federal
election campaigns. The request is in addition to the
Committee's request of $4,533,660 for its recurring operating
budget for 1997.
This Report is submitted pursuant to Rule XXVI 9(a) of the
Standing Rules of the Senate in justification for the
Committee's request for non-recurring funding.
II. BACKGROUND
Following the 1996 election, the Majority Leader designated
the Committee on Governmental Affairs as the Senate's lead
Committee to conduct an investigation into allegations of
during 1996 federal election campaigns. The Committee on
Governmental Affairs has the broadest oversight jurisdiction of
any Committee in the Senate, charged with ensuring ``the
efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of all agencies and
departments of the Government.'' Rule XXV (k)(2)(B), Standing
Rules of the Senate. This broad grant of standing jurisdiction
would enable the Committee on Governmental Affairs to review
all the allegations rather than requiring that the
investigation be split among several committees, depending on
their jurisdiction.
New allegations about improper campaign fund-raising and
spending practices have continued to be brought to the
attention of the Committee since it was charged with conducting
an investigation into such matters.
III. COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS
The Committee on Governmental Affairs met on January 29,
1997, to discuss its budget and organizational structure. This
meeting continued on January 30, 1997, at which time the
Committee agreed unanimously to a resolution establishing the
scope of its inquiry into improper campaign fund-raising and
spending practices in 1996 federal election campaigns. The
Committee subsequently approved its 1997 budget request,
including both $4,533,660 for its recurring budget and $6.5
million to support its investigation into campaign fund-raising
and spending practices, at its January 30 meeting by a vote of
9 yeas (Chairman Thompson, Senators Roth, Stevens, Collins,
Brownback, Domenici, Cochran, Nickles, and Specter) to 4 nays
(Senators Glenn, Levin, Lieberman, and Cleland), with three
additional nay votes cast by proxy (Senators Akaka, Durbin, and
Torricelli).
The Committee on Rules and Administration bifurcated the
budget and approved only the Committee on Governmental Affairs'
request for its recurring budget when it reported S. Res. 54,
the resolution to fund Senate committees for 1997. The request
for non-recurring fund to support the investigation was not
considered but was postponed to a later date. Although the
Committee's request for its non-recurring authorization to
conduct its investigation was submitted with its annual
authorization resolution, it would not be considered together
with that annual authorization because of the decision of the
Committee on Rules and Administration to handle all non-
recurring authorization requests separately.
iv. discussion
The allegations that have been made are very serious and go
to the fundamental workings of our democratic government. The
faith of the people in their government and in their system of
government is at risk. Our Constitution is premised on the
fallibility of human enterprises, including governments. The
Founders of this Republic did not believe that the errors of
government were self-correcting. They knew that only constant
examination of our shortcomings, and learning from them, would
enable representative government to survive. They believed,
correctly, that this process makes America stronger, not
weaker. We must have the same faith.
These allegations of improper activities must be
investigated. The Committee intends to investigate allegations
of improper activities by all, Republicans, Democrats, or other
political partisans. It will investigate specific activities,
not on the political party against which the allegations are
made.
Many allegations have been made against campaign from both
major political parties. On January 30, 1997, the Committee
unanimously approved a resolution setting forth the scope of
its investigation. Without limiting the Committee's
jurisdiction under the Standing Rules of the Senate or the
ultimate scope of the investigation, the Committee voted to
investigate:
Illegal or improper fund-raising and spending
practices in the 1996 federal election campaigns,
including but not limited to:
Foreign contributions and their effect on the
American political system;
Conflicts of interest involving federal
officeholders and employees, as well as the
misuse of government offices;
Failure by Federal government employees to
maintain and observe legal barriers between
fund-raising and official business;
The independence of the presidential
campaigns from the political activities pursed
for their benefit by outside individuals or
groups;
The misuse of charitable and tax-exempt
organizations in connection with political or
fund-raising activities;
Unregulated (soft) money and its effect on
the American political system;
Promises and/or the granting of special
access in return for political contributions or
favors;
The effect of independent expenditures
(whether by corporations, labor unions, or
otherwise) upon our current campaign finance
system, and the question as to whether such
expenditures are truly independent;
Contributions to and expenditures by entities
for the benefit or in the interest of public
officials; and
To the extent they are similar or analogous,
practices that occurred in previous federal
election campaigns.
Within this broad scope, consensus will emerge on which
issues are the most serious, and those matters will receive the
greatest consideration. Among these many issues, however, the
Committee will consider as its most important task whether any
U.S. policy or national security decisions were affected by
contributions made to or for the benefit of the President, or
by the improper actions of any executive branch employee or
former employee.
The Committee undertook to review carefully its needs in
light of the broad scope of the investigation the Committee is
to undertake. The figure requested, $6.5 million, will meet the
needs of the majority and minority to conduct this
investigation fully and appropriately. This sum compares
favorably to the amounts expended by other major Senate
investigations.
The American people want Congress to stand for something,
including the truth. It is the obligation of the Committee on
Governmental Affairs, which has been charged with this
investigation, to find the truth and lay it out for the
American people.
v. cost estimate
This Resolution provides an authorization of appropriations
in the amount of $4,533,600 in 1997 recurring budget authority,
and $6,517,121 in 1997 non-recurring budget authority, for a
1997 total of $11,050,721 in budget authority; and $4,653,386
in 1998 recurring budget authority.
vi. evaluation of regulatory impact
Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has
considered the regulatory and paperwork impact of S. Res. 39,
as well as the impact on personal privacy. The resolution
creates no additional regulatory burden or unfunded mandates on
private sector individuals or businesses and has no impact on
paperwork or personal privacy beyond those imposed by existing
law.
VII. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS GLENN, LEVIN, LIEBERMAN, AKAKA,
DURBIN, TORRICELLI, AND CLELAND
introduction
The Democratic members of the Committee on Governmental
Affairs welcome the opportunity to participate in this historic
investigation into allegations of both improper and illegal
conduct regarding the financing of federal elections. The
integrity of our system of government, both in fact and as a
matter of public perception, is directly affected by the way in
which political campaigns are financed. We support a thorough,
bipartisan investigation into the way in which money is raised
and disbursed in the political process. Where illegalities
either civil or criminal have occurred, they should be exposed.
Where improprieties have occurred, even if technically legal,
they should be exposed and legislative reform should be
considered. A thorough and fair investigation of both
presidential and congressional elections is imperative to
restore confidence in the electoral process and lay the
groundwork for sorely needed campaign finance reform
legislation.
committee proceedings
The Committee on Governmental Affairs met on January 29,
1997 and January 30, 1997 to take up budgetary and other
organizational matters. On January 29, 1997, the Chairman
proposed a budget of $11,050,781 for the year 1997, which
included $4,533,660 for the regular Committee budget and
$6,517,121 for supplemental funding to conduct a special
investigation into campaign finance activities. During the
January 29, 1997 meeting, the Committee adjourned without
action for the stated purpose of providing an opportunity for
all members to consider more fully the parameters of the
special investigation.
On January 30, 1997, the Committee met and accepted, by
unanimous vote, a resolution that set forth the scope of the
Committee's special investigation. The Committee then
considered an amendment to the Chairman's proposed budget,
offered by Senator Glenn, that set forth specified procedural
and other accountability measures for conducting the
investigation. The Committee rejected Senator Glenn's amendment
by a vote of nine nays (the Chairman, Senators Roth, Stevens,
Brownback, Cochran, Nickles, Specter by vote and Senators
Domenici and Collins by proxy) to seven yeas (Senators Glenn,
Levin, Lieberman, Cleland by vote and Senators Akaka, Durbin
and Torricelli by proxy). The Committee then accepted the
budget as proposed by the Chairman by a vote of nine yeas to
seven nays.
discussion
The Committee's unanimous vote regarding the scope of the
proposed investigation is a testament to the patent need for a
thorough and wide-ranging investigation into the role of big
money in federal elections, both Presidential and
congressional. Loopholes in federal election laws, combined
with the voracious appetites of campaigns for large sums of
money, have heightened the impact of large donors on the
electoral process. It has become a system increasingly in
disrepute which must be investigated and reformed.
We agree wholeheartedly with the description of the scope
of the investigation as set forth in the majority report. We
therefore vigorously disagree with any attempt to limit that
scope. We also disagree with the proposed budget of $6.5
million, which we believe is excessive in light of past
congressional investigations of this nature, and we disagree
with the fact that the resolution contains no end date. A final
date is important to drive the investigation to a conclusion
and to get the committee's findings and recommendations to the
Senate for consideration in ample time to enact legislation in
this Congress. Finally, we disagree with the fact that the
resolution contains no agreement on bipartisan procedures. Our
substitute resolution resolves those issues. Moreover, unlike
the resolution proposed by the majority, it subjects the
investigation to procedures which would insure accountability
for expenditures, thereby assuring the American public and
Congress that their money was being spent wisely.
Any attempt to exempt large areas of concern from the scope
of this investigation will only serve to undermine the
credibility of the investigation and the efficacy of its
outcome. Regrettably, the recent proposal by the majority on
the Rules Committee to reverse the unanimous vote of the
Governmental Affairs Committee and limit this investigation
solely to ``illegal'' activities may well have such an effect.
The term ``illegal'' means acts which are unlawful, contrary to
civil or criminal law. Arguably, this will cover a broad range
of activities, but may nevertheless hamper the Committee's
inquiry into such critical areas as ``soft money,'' which is
the greatest loophole by far in the federal election laws.
These critical areas, which include ``soft money'' and
``independent expenditures,'' should not be beyond the purview
of this investigation. Any attempt to leave these areas of
inquiry outside of this investigation should be seen for what
it is: a transparent attempt to shield Congressional campaigns
from the scrutiny they warrant. If this occurs, it will be a
cynical disservice to the American people.
An investigation of this scope and importance must be both
thorough and bipartisan if it is to be credible. Unfortunately,
neither the Committee Democrats nor the American people have
been given assurances that this investigation will in fact be
bipartisan. No agreement has been reached thus far that will
insure full and fair participation by minority staff in the
investigative process. Indeed, the experience to date does not
bode well for bipartisanship unless steps are taken to correct
the process. For example, more than 60 subpoenas have been
drafted by the majority and sent to the minority with little
advance notice and no documentary support. Except for two
subpoenas directed at a Republican fundraising scandal that had
already been the subject of a completed criminal proceeding,
the majority directed all subpoenas at Democratic fundraising
practices. No subpoenas proposed by the minority have been
issued to date. In addition, there have been instances when
minority staff have not been kept abreast of investigative
developments on a timely basis in order to participate. This is
not the way to proceed if the investigation is truly to be
bipartisan; and ultimately it will reflect poorly on the entire
undertaking. It is both unseemly and self-defeating. It is to
be hoped that, in the future, the majority will work with the
minority in drafting and issuing subpoenas, receiving and
providing access to, and maintaining the security of,
documents, arranging interviews, depositions, providing office
space and sharing investigative technology.
The ultimate goal of this investigation should be to
provide a basis for comprehensive and timely campaign finance
reform legislation. Anything short of that will mean that we
have failed as legislators, and thereby failed the American
public which looks to us to protect the integrity of the
electoral process from the predations and inappropriate
influence of big money.
John Glenn.
Joe Lieberman.
Dick Durbin.
Max Cleland.
Carl Levin.
Daniel K. Akaka.
Robert G. Torricelli.
viii. changes to existing law
The resolution authorizes funding for the Committee on
Governmental Affairs within the appropriations allocated to the
United States Senate in the 1997 Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, Public Law 104-197.