[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.

                                
