John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GLENN. Four minutes. We have 5 left. That is fair enough.

Mr. GLENN. How much for the other side?

Mr. GLENN. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, the colloquy we had proposed earlier, I, in my part of this, can be rather brief, and I would allot myself such time as I may require. I feel very certain that the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, my chairman, will agree with this. But let me just put this forward as a colloquy so we can help clarify some of the understanding that has gone into this today. With the addition of the term ``improper,'' to expand the scope of the investigation to be conducted by our committee, the Governmental Affairs Committee, it is my understanding that the committee's jurisdiction to investigate now includes activities which are improper, even though they may not be in violation of any law or regulation. The term ``improper'' means not conforming to appropriate standards, and that is a broad term. I believe that the scope of the committee's investigation would cover--and this is the important part here--would cover the areas set forth in the prior unanimously approved scope of the committee's investigation that was voted out unanimously by the committee. I would also assume that allegations of illegality or impropriety by a reputable source, such as the sources previously used by the committee to issue the subpoenas, shall be sufficient for us to initiate investigative action if necessary. Would that be basically the Senator's understanding of what we have done here today?

Mr. GLENN. I understand that. I appreciate that answer. I guess a different way to state it would be: Are there any parts of that original proposal that the chairman would specifically rule out as for any consideration under impropriety?

Mr. GLENN. OK. I will certainly accept that answer now. I think the indication of what has happened here today with regard to the compromise in this particular area and on this bill is something that I think, with all the discussion, both on the floor here and privately with the different groups that have met today, shows we have made a lot of progress. It is our view that I am not going to try and pin the Senator down on every single one of these points and go through them one by one. I don't think that is necessary. I think what he has indicated is in general we are going to look into these things where there is impropriety involved, in addition to illegality, and we will make judgments on what is most important. We have broadened the scope tremendously from what it was before and it certainly fits more into the line of what was unanimously approved as the scope by the Governmental Affairs Committee by a unanimous vote. That has been the trend of this today, and I think this gives us a whole new broadened level of investigation and one that we welcome, because I think it will lay a better base for campaign finance reform over the long term. That is going to be very good, something that people of this country certainly need. I think, had this been just restricted just to straight violations of law, to illegalities, we would not have had that kind of scope. I know, with the time limits we have here today, I would like to move on. I certainly accept the Senator's view of these things as he has expressed them. I know Senator Levin had some concerns he was going to express about the processes, and have a colloquy in that particular area to try and delineate some of these things a little better and I yield him such time as he may require.

Mr. GLENN. I will yield to Senator Lieberman. But let me add, Senator Lieberman and Senator Levin have worked and worked on this particular situation. I certainly appreciate their efforts, as all the Governmental Affairs Committee members have on the Democratic side, and I appreciate all their efforts. I yield some time to Senator Lieberman. How much time do you need?

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, may I ask how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. GLENN. Basically, yes, Mr. President. I think it is right that the Senator from Pennsylvania brings this up out of his own prosecutorial background. He knows how long court cases can be extended. He has had more experience, probably, than anybody in the Senate Chamber on that. So he sees a pitfall that we will have to deal with. I agree with that. I agree, also, that it is impossible for us at this point to say what might occur in this area and what court cases there might be or other delays or leads that we are having to follow up on that may not be wound up or not be brought to conclusion at that exact date. I think what it points out is that, as members of that committee, and as chairman and as a member of that committee, we just have to be aware that if anything like that starts to occur, we bring it back to the floor as fast as possible. That is rather key to this whole thing, because our authority is only as the Senate gives it to us to go ahead with this. So it is incumbent upon us to bring it back here as fast as possible to get an extension every time, or whatever else is necessary to do. I hypothesize here as to whether this happens or that happens, but the point the Senator makes is an excellent point and one we are going to have to be aware of through the years.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, a question of the majority leader, if I might. With the debate proceeding this morning on my amendment and the possibility that we may be able to complete that debate this morning and move on to discussion of another amendment and knowing the schedules of all the other Senators are very tight, too, and letting them plan their activities here in the Chamber as well as other places, would it be agreeable to put the vote off until after the caucus?

Mr. GLENN. That would be fine. I would make that as a unanimous- consent agreement, that any votes that might normally occur this morning following debate on my amendment and other amendments that might be brought up at least be stacked until--the vote on my amendment be delayed until after the caucus this afternoon.

Mr. GLENN. I would be glad to do that. I withdraw the request.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I think it is good to review how we got to the current situation we are in, because this was not our doing on Governmental Affairs. It was not our suggestion that we be given the duty of investigating campaign finance reform. It was not our suggestion that the jurisdictions of other committees that might have an interest in this be given to us. What happened--and I am recounting this mainly from press reports of what happened, and I presume they are accurate--was that there were several committees who saw themselves as wanting part of this investigation into campaign finance reform. You had the Commerce Committee because there were trade matters involved that there had been some allegations about. Senator McCain, who has a big interest in campaign finance reform, chairs that committee and could take an active role in what might happen with campaign finance reform. The Judiciary Committee was concerned about some of the legal matters regarding elections, and they had some things they were going to look into. The Foreign Relations Committee certainly had an interest in this because foreign money supposedly came back in to our election campaigns here. So they wanted to find out what happened to foreign relations and foreign policy and were any of those things altered as a result of money coming back in. The Rules Committee, which has a jurisdiction over election law, certainly had an interest in this particular area. The Governmental Affairs Committee, of which I am the ranking member, also had their own interest in this in that we are basically the investigative committee of the Senate. We have investigated such things as drugs and drugs coming into the country and organized crime and fraudulent health programs and nonproliferation around the world of nuclear weapons and terrorism and a whole host of things that we have a broad experience investigating. Our mandate to do investigations is the broadest on Capitol Hill. We have been accustomed to doing this through many, many decades. The suggestion was not made from the Democratic side that all these conflicting jurisdictions be combined into the Governmental Affairs Committee. This was a suggestion that was made by the Republican leadership. In fact, it was not only a suggestion, it was decided by the Republican leadership on their side of the aisle that these other jurisdictions would not be exercised and that this investigation would be focused in the Governmental Affairs Committee. This was not a suggestion made from the Democratic side. It was Republican leadership that decided this. And so to act now as though we were somehow usurping authority of another committee by proposing a broad investigation on the Governmental Affairs Committee just is not the case. That is just not the way it happened. I can tell you exactly what happened. And once again, this has all been out in public print. This is not something I know from being in meetings because I have not been in meetings that were involved with any of these decisions to assign it to the Governmental Affairs Committee. But what happened, when it got to the Governmental Affairs Committee, was this: Senator Thompson had an interest in a broad investigation. I had an interest in a broad investigation. We had some ideas on scope. We sat down in a couple of meetings, and we worked out an agreement that was broad in scope, as it should be, because this whole investigation into campaign finance reform does not involve only illegalities, those things that are against the law. It involves much more than that. Any fair observer of the campaign finance system agrees that in addition to illegalities, there are many, many things out there that are legal but probably should not be. All the abuses of soft money, as it is called, that came up in this last election, all those abuses were so onerous to most people across this country that they just want us to get into campaign finance reform. Every single poll that has been done across this country shows that people want campaign finance reform. They also see that polling has been interesting in that it has indicated that they think both parties, both campaigns this last election cycle--the fault that can be pointed at one direction or another is not all one direction, it is bipartisan. We have a bipartisan problem here, and we need a bipartisan solution. Part of it is looking into illegalities where the existing law was violated. There is no doubt that that has to be done. The other part of this problem is looking into the soft money in particular and independent expenditures that were so vile, so onerous in this last election. So when Republican leadership assigned this overall investigation of campaign finance to the Governmental Affairs Committee, it was not at our request, but at his suggestion, at his direction, so that the responsibilities would not be in quite a number of different committees but would be centered in the basic investigative committee of the U.S. Senate. Now what happened? Senator Thompson and I, in the two meetings I mentioned, sat down and we drew out a broad scope in which we planned to look into not only illegalities but also into the equally disturbing areas of where campaign finance reform is needed that involve soft money and independent expenditures. In this last election I remember reading a newspaper account of a Congressman who, after the election, said he wound up feeling like a ping pong ball in the middle of this and he had no control over it because there were so many outside influences coming in and putting ads on that he did not even know anything about that he felt like a ping pong ball in his own election and completely out of control of the situation. Now, if we are going to take any fair look at campaign finance reform, it is going to have to involve illegalities, of course. We plan to look into those. But we got to have soft money. Our scope, as we had outlined it on that committee, was put out. It disturbed some people. Let me say, when Senator Thompson and I agreed to the scope, it was then taken to the committee. The committee has three members on the Governmental Affairs Committee that are also members of the Rules Committee. When this was brought before them, after considerable debate, the committee agreed upon the scope of our investigation. They voted on that and approved it. It was agreed upon. What happened when that got to the Rules Committee? The fact is that on the Rules Committee some of the people that are the most adamant against any campaign reform consideration at all disagreed strongly with what was being done and that any look be taken into the soft money area. When it got to the Rules Committee with the request for the additional funding of the $6.5 million that had gone over, that disturbed them very much. So what happened? They delayed funding in the Rules Committee because of their objection to us looking into soft money and some of the things that are legal but probably should not be what we were going to look into. They wanted to protect their ability to raise soft money because they outdo the Democrats about two to one in soft money raising. Obviously, it is a factor in not only having gained control of the Senate but in maintaining control of the Senate. They objected over on the Rules Committee to the funding that had to be approved by the Rules Committee for additional funding for investigations. Now, at that point things were stymied. They dug in their heels over there and were not going to approve any money, as I understand it, for investigation unless our jurisdiction on the Governmental Affairs Committee was reduced and those jurisdictions involving things we were going to look into with regard to soft money were brought over to the Rules Committee where they obviously would have much more say in what happened to that than they would if the jurisdiction stayed with the Governmental Affairs Committee. That is how we got to where we are. So a reduced amount was agreed upon over in the Rules Committee but with the proviso that the Governmental Affairs Committee could investigate only illegal activities. Only illegal. That took out any investigation, any investigation whatever of soft money, unless it proved to be illegal, only illegal. But most of the soft money problem is legal. I do not think it should be. Our investigations in that area were going to, I think, lay out a good case of why we need campaign finance reform changes. That is how we got to where we are. It was at least implied here on the floor yesterday and even this morning I think it could be implied that we somehow had overextended our jurisdiction on the Governmental Affairs Committee. It was leadership on the Republican side that combined all these other committees' interest and assigned to the Governmental Affairs Committee the task of looking into all of this whole campaign finance reform area. Now, what about the substitute amendment that is before the Senate now, the substitute to my amendment? What it does, as I see it, and I just got it a few minutes ago so I have not had a chance to look into it in that much detail, but what it does basically is say that we are taking back the authority of the Governmental Affairs Committee that we were asked to do. We did not ask to do it, we were assigned that task. They are now taking back our authority to look into any of these matters, any of the matters relating to Federal elections generally, including the election of the President, the Vice President, Members of the Congress, and corrupt practices, as I understand it. Let me read this through. It is a short amendment. Strike all after ``(b)'' and insert the following: ``The additional funds authorized by this section are for the sole purpose of conducting an investigation of illegal activities in connection with 1996 Federal election campaigns.'' Now, my amendment would change that and change the scope back to what it was originally in the Governmental Affairs Committee. So that refers back to what we were assigned to do. It goes on with subsection (c): Referral to Committee on Rules and Administration.--Because the Committee on Rules and Administration, not the Committee on Governmental Affairs, has jurisdiction under rule 25 over all proposed legislation and other matters relating to-- (1) Federal elections generally, including the election of the President, the Vice President, and Members of the Congress, and (2) corrupt practices, the Committee on Governmental Affairs shall refer to the Committee on Rules and Administration any evidence of activities in connection with the 1996 Federal election campaigns which activities are not illegal but which may require investigation by a Committee of the Senate revealed pursuant to the investigation authorized by subsection (b). What we are being told then is we have to refer back, because the Committee on Rules and Administration has jurisdiction in these matters, which we never quarreled with. That was there going in. It was Republican leadership that wanted us to take the jurisdiction and run with it on campaign finance reform. Now, because it has become objectionable to some Members on their side and they see we are going to get into soft money, what happens? They are proposing to take that authority back from us. It was at least implied yesterday afternoon on the floor and again this morning that we somehow were in error, I guess, in what we were doing, even though we had been asked to do it by leadership. I do not quarrel with the fact that Federal elections generally are looked at by the Rules Committee. That is in their jurisdiction. I do not disagree that they can look into corrupt practices. I think maybe this could be interpreted to say that the Governmental Affairs Committee is not permitted to look into corrupt practices, whatever the definition of that is. We will have to discuss that a little, I guess. In any event, here we are with the situation where on our side of the aisle we have been pushing for campaign finance reform this whole year. It has been brought up time and time and time again. We wanted to bring up the McCain-Feingold bill and get it voted on. There has been very little support for that on the other side of the aisle. In fact, none, practically. Senator McCain and Senator Thompson probably are the only sponsors of that bill on the Republican side. So the intent here is obvious. The intent is to squelch the broad- based investigation that we were going to have on the Governmental Affairs Committee and put it back in the Rules Committee where some of the Members that are most adamantly opposed to campaign finance reform are members. So it is not a very pretty picture this morning. I was going to have a speech on the scope of my amendment this morning, and it might be good, still, to run through some of that. I hope people would see through what a subterfuge this is in trying to change the amendment that I had before us. I had not been given the opportunity yet this morning to make some comments on my amendment, the underlying amendment to this second degree. I believe I will make those comments now and then see what discussion we want to have beyond that. The amendment I offered last evening, or laid down last evening, corrected what I saw as the legislation in Senate Resolution 39 where it is most deficient, and that is in the scope of our investigation. Let me first address Senate Resolution 39 as approved by the Rules Committee and is on the floor now as the underlying resolution to be considered. Where campaign finance reform is concerned, the proposed legislation, as far as I am concerned, could be called coverup for Congress, coverup for Congress' legislation. I think that is what it is. It does not do this incidentally or accidentally. It is not a coverup that is incidental or accidental. It is deliberate, intentional, and I think cynical. It is specifically defined and worded to thwart and curtail much of the campaign finance investigation that was planned by the Governmental Affairs Committee this year. After much discussion with the belief that the proposed investigation and hearings could set the informational basis for much needed campaign finance reform, Chairman Thompson and I had agreed upon the scope of the investigation, all fully within Governmental Affairs Committee jurisdiction, I might add. We were given additional guidelines by the majority leader and on his part they would see that other committees were not delving into their individual interest areas. That scope was to include investigating allegations wherever they might lead and with nothing off limits with regard to Federal elections. I want to point out that the agreement was approved unanimously by the Governmental Affairs Committee, three members of which are also on the Rules Committee. That greatly disturbed some Members of the Senate who do not favor us looking at campaign finance practices on Capitol Hill and, more specifically, in the Senate. They had to find a way to control the process. Why? Why would anyone want to interfere with investigating every facet of campaign finance? So we can correct the abuses that have plagued recent elections and nearly made a mockery out of election 1996, and will be even worse next time around, unless we act to correct some of these practices. The resolution stands good Government on its head. The amendment I proposed would change that. Let me stress that this is the very first time in my 22 years in the Senate, and on the Governmental Affairs Committee, that I have ever seen any committee approve and bring to the floor a resolution prohibiting another committee from investigating improper, unethical, or wrongful behavior in any area, whether it was special investigative funding or not. That is what is involved here. They keep pointing out that this is only the additional money. We still could use basic funds out of our committee's normal yearly basic funds to do this kind of investigating. But that would mean we would have to lay down all the other jurisdictional oversight matters that normally come before that committee. So it is deadly serious for those of us who are interested in fairness in elections and stamping out the growing abuses that have grown apace around the body politic. What I am saying the resolution would do is prohibit another committee from investigating improper, unethical, or wrongful behavior in any area, where it was special investigative funding. Granted, that was going to be the source of how we were going to do this investigation. The proposed resolution says that with the money provided for the Governmental Affairs Committee investigation, it may look at illegal actions and illegal actions only. Now, that is a far tougher test of what we can put on the table to be looked at. Some of those campaign activities involving both parties in Federal campaigns has smelled to high heaven, in the eyes of most citizens, and they cry out for correction, but are legal under current law. It may be legal now, but should not be if we are going to clean out the political stables. One example of such a subject, as I mentioned, is soft money--money which, due to loopholes in the law, can be given in unlimited amounts by wealthy individuals, corporations, and unions. That is legal. Soft money was obtained and used in the 1996 Federal election in ways that turned fairness upside down and corrupted our whole political system. Few political scientists would disagree that, if left unchecked to grow in the future at the same rate as it has in the past, soft money can become an even more destructive and virulent cancer in the body politic. I was reading a booklet yesterday entitled ``A Bag of Tricks; Loopholes in the Campaign Finance System.'' The first sentence of chapter one reads: The biggest loophole by far in our campaign finance laws is soft money. They are right--but it's legal. And now, by S. 39, we are to be prohibited from investigating soft money abuses, unless we come across some that are definitely illegal. We could look at them. But if an area is improper, if it is unethical or just flat common sense that it is wrong, we cannot look at it, even though it may be crucial to real campaign finance reform, and even though the Governmental Affairs Committee has the jurisdiction and experience to investigate. Why, then, are we being cut back in scope to the point where only illegalities will be on the Governmental Affairs table? Why is our investigation being limited to 1996 only? Why cause such a drastic change in addressing what is properly viewed as an expanding national scandal? The basic question, I guess, is: Who is afraid of what? The answer is not very pleasant, but it is obvious. Why the change? Because bad as the money chase may be, correcting it would upset the apple cart for those in the Senate who have learned how to work the system for their own personal or party political benefit. Under present law, does one party have an advantage over the other in fundraising, in particular, with regard to soft money? Yes. There is a substantial difference in the usual supporting donor bases. Both Democrats and Republicans have some wealthy individual donors. But the preponderance in that area is tilted heavily in favor of wealthy Republicans. Both parties have some support from corporations and labor. Again, the tilt from labor is on the Democratic side. But, again, balancing the Democratic labor support against the Republican corporate or wealthy individual support comes out heavily in favor of the Republicans. Let me read a few figures reported by the Federal Election Commission regarding the 1996 elections. Of the total spent on the elections-- everything, not just the Senate, but across the board in the last election--the Democrats are estimated to have spent $332 million. Republicans spent $548 million. Just in the Senate campaign committees, let's look at that. In hard dollars, Democrats raised $30 million; Republicans raised $62 million. In soft money, Democrats raised $14 million; Republicans raised $27 million. That comes down just with regard to the Senate as over a 2-to-1 advantage, with Democrats having been able to raise $44 million and Republicans $89 million. So, in summary, under current law, Republicans are able to raise at least double what Democrats raised to help fund Senate races. Now, we all know that money is certainly ahead of whatever is in second place with regard to winning an election these days. Two-thirds of the money goes to TV and other things, and so on. But with money being the biggest single factor in political control, it is no wonder Republicans in the Senate do not want to change the system. It is the ``goose laying golden eggs'' that was crucial to gaining, and now to retaining, their majority control in the Senate. So we need to change S. 39. That is what my amendment would have done. In deciding whether to change it, the choice is plain and simple: Party and personal interests of the moment versus cleaning up the system, making it proper and fair for all Americans, not just a special few, for the long-term future. Initially, those who were adamantly opposed to campaign finance reform on the Republican side--on the Republican side of the Rules Committee, which must approve Governmental Affairs Committee investigative funding above the normal committee budget--were able to prevent funding to the Governmental Affairs Committee for the investigations. Had that position prevailed, it would have entirely scheduled the hearings, and because the tarnished Republican public image which that would evoke was unacceptable to Republican leadership, the proposed resolution--S. 39--deal was cut, whereby the Governmental Affairs Committee was stripped of its authority to use money provided directly for the investigation to look into improper, unethical, or wrongful matters, unless they met the far more difficult standard of being illegal. And those jurisdictions were specifically given to the Rules Committee. Now, I have the utmost confidence in Senator Warner, chairman of the Rules Committee. I think he will do his best to fulfill the responsibilities given to his committee with this resolution. But therein lies a problem. Several of the most vocal Republican opponents of campaign finance reform are on the Rules Committee. They are opponents, in particular, of including Congress in investigations of what may, at the same time, be legal, but also improper, unethical, or wrong by any fair standard. These are the same people who refuse to give the Governmental Affairs investigative funding to begin with. Now, they will be the investigators of what they so adamantly oppose. They will be the investigators of what they so adamantly oppose. Foxes guarding hen houses is indeed a good analogy. They got their way. To me, it is a high price. The amendment I had proposed would change all this. Very simple. All it does is restore the original Governmental Affairs Committee scope of this investigation. It restores the scope the committee voted on unanimously, with not one dissenting vote on the Governmental Affairs Committee, including three members that are also members of the Rules Committee. The amendment would allow the committee to look into all sorts of campaign behavior, whether illegal, legal, improper or unethical. That is what the American people want, a complete look at this whole problem. Restoring this scope to our investigation would allow us to conduct a broad, far-reaching inquiry into our current campaign system. I think it is a high price that Republican leadership has paid to assuage a few Members and to place them in what will probably turn out to be a controlling position of any investigation into other than just strict illegalities. The Rules Committee would be permitted to look at issues surrounding soft money and independent expenditures. Our Committee on Governmental Affairs would be permitted to look at issues surrounding soft money and independent expenditures, which are two of our biggest problems today, but in most cases our committee would only be able to look at those which are illegal, we believe are illegal going in. And the Rules Committee would have everything else except those matters which are completely illegal. If we followed my resolution, we would restore the scope, allow us to follow the money trail, and let the chips fall where they may. Mr. President, I am fully aware there are serious differences of opinion surrounding how this resolution, S. 39, came to the floor, and there are differences of opinion surrounding what is going to happen to it. But there are probably few minds undecided as to how they will vote on these amendments and, in particular, on my amendment before it was amended here by the majority leader. But before any votes are cast, I hope all Senators will take a long, hard look at what has been proposed by the Rules Committee in S. 39. I would ask you to look ahead, look ahead about 20 years when your kids have grown up. The majority leadership in the Senate may well have changed. It may be in different hands by that time. I am sure we would all hope that when our children and grandchildren have reached their adult years, the political system will have been improved and political fundraising will not be in the mess it is today. One way to gain that end is to assure that investigations are carried out now without fear or favor and spotlighting the dark corners, whether illegal, legal, wrong, improper or unethical. The amendment I was proposing to S. 39 would take us in that direction. If the shoe is on the foot 20 years from now, would that change any Republican votes today? I don't know. Think about it. They have an advantage today; it is about a 2 to 1 advantage, and they are preventing us from really looking into any of these matters on a meaningful basis. Mr. President, the substitute that was submitted by the majority leader would once again stand on its head what I think to be fairness and what the American people want. It would restrict us on the Governmental Affairs Committee as to what we can do. And I repeat what I said going in. This was not something we asked for. It was something that the Republican leadership decided to give to that committee, and then, when it turns out that some of their own members do not want us looking into some of these dark corners, they say, OK, we are going to take that assignment back. And because we have the members who are most objecting to any campaign reform on the Rules Committee, they are now going to look into some of these other areas. I am sure the chairman of that committee, Senator Warner, my good friend across the aisle, will do everything he can, but knowing what the membership of the committee is and knowing the views of the membership on the Rules Committee with regard to campaign finance reform, he is going to have a herculean job to try and get out meaningful legislation, legislation that is going to do anything meaningful for campaign finance reform. I do not ever go around saying I feel sorry for other Senators, but as far as getting anything out of that committee that is going to have a title of campaign finance reform on it, it is going to be a very difficult job for him. He is being a good soldier in taking this thing on. Senator Thompson has said, well, OK, I guess something is better than nothing, and so he has not been involved with the debate over on the floor, so far at least, but I just think this is wrong. I think what they are trying to do with this substitute amendment to my amendment this morning is wrong. It spells out that the Rules Committee will be even more direct in denying us what we thought our investigative scope was on the Governmental Affairs Committee, a task, I repeat for the third time, we did not ask to have. It was assigned to the committee. I want to make one other statement, too, and then I will turn this over to other people who are waiting to make their statements. Mr. President, yesterday the big thrust by the Republican Party by any observation was we have problems with China and we have problems with campaign financing coming in from China and whether it occurred, whether it was against the law, who did it, were there any favors given, and so on. And that was being used yesterday almost as if, although it wasn't so stated, they are for investigating that and we somehow are not just as much in full agreement of investigating that because it somehow involves the Democratic administration. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am committed to looking into anything that happened in that area. The President has said he wants to look into that area. And I do not doubt his sincerity in that. It is a blot on the whole body politic. Republican, Democrat, Senate, House, everybody else knows that has to be looked into. So all the charts that were out on the floor yesterday showing Huang and Trie and all this and the subcategories and the fine print down here that implied there has to be some new look into that area as though we were opposing that on our side, they were for it and we were against it, that is wrong. I will borrow their charts and I will use them on the floor myself on the Democratic side if that is needed, and I am sure the President would like to have them down at the White House to show what has been dug out so far that is wrong, and he wants to correct it. So that is not one there is any difference on. Let us just make certain of that. So for all those reasons I rise to oppose the proposal by the majority leader, the substitute amendment to the amendment that I had proposed. I will have other questions about some of the items in S. 39 as we go along. I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. I yield such time as the Senator from Michigan may desire.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, this debate comes down to a simple choice: You are in favor of campaign finance reform or you are opposed to campaign finance reform, and that is what the argument is all about. I believe both sides of the aisle want to correct things as far as illegalities are concerned, I don't have any question of that. But the other area that is so big is the area of independent expenditures, soft money and all the other practices that grew up and came to a peak in the 1996 election. There was no doubt that the public was demanding that we look into this, and there were various committees that wanted a part of that activity. There was the Commerce Committee, Judiciary Committee, Foreign Relations Committee, Rules Committee, and Governmental Affairs Committee. The Republican leadership decided to talk the other committees into not exercising their jurisdictions they normally would have in this area and assign that to the Governmental Affairs Committee, which has the broadest investigative authority on Capitol Hill. My friend, the Senator from Virginia, read into the Record a little while ago the Governmental Affairs Committee's jurisdiction out of Senate Resolution 54, which details what we are to look into with the money that comes out and we are given each year. It involves the whole gamut of anything to do with the Federal Government in any way, shape, or form, any type of corruption, anything we want to look into on that. We have exercised that jurisdiction through the years. It was assigned to the committee. Senator Thompson, chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and I worked out an agreement on what the scope of this investigation would be. We didn't have agreement on the money yet or some other things like that, but we at least had the $1.8 million we agreed to. Today, we are going up to the $4.5 million that was stated, but we object strongly to cutting back on our normal jurisdiction of what we can look into. Why is this being cut back? Because a few members on the Rules Committee that has to pass on our additional money for investigative activity over and above our normal committee budget dug in their heels, the people who are publicly outspoken against any campaign finance reform, and they are the ones who, on the Rules Committee, were able to stop that type funding, unless they got an agreement, unless a deal was cut. So a deal was cut that we would not be able to look into any of the things involved that we wanted to look into with regard to soft money and independent expenditures with regard to Capitol Hill, with regard to congressional campaigns, Senate or the House. They were dead set against that. They didn't want that looked into. The reason, I guess, is because Republicans outdo the Democrats about 2 to 1 in this fundraising area and particularly in the area of soft money. It was crucial, as we see it, a couple of years ago in changing the majority in the Senate, because money is the mother's milk of politics. It is really what has more impact than anything else. So they objected to any changes or to any investigation in those areas.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I do not object to this proposal for 5 minutes for debate equally divided on the amendment, and following debate, we proceed to vote. There has been a lot of negotiating going on here, as has been obvious to everyone. I think we have some satisfactory procedures worked out that will be generally far more acceptable than what we had prior to that. I look forward to the vote. I think that most people on both sides will probably be happy to vote for this because this is a way we get to a final solution out of the disagreements we have had here. I look forward to the vote. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I don't want to get into another debate before we even get around to this vote, but I think the focus on where the wrongdoing is can be either on illegalities or on improprieties with the change that has been proposed by the leaders. I would not want to let it be said right now or let it be indicated that the main focus--what the main focus will be, I think, is up to the committee chairman and the ranking minority member to work out. I think we have language in here that will do that. It might be inappropriate at sometime to take up an illegality if it was looked at as fairly minor, or a giant impropriety over that, in our judgment, needed to be looked at first. I would not agree at this point that this vote we are about to take specifies exactly which direction we would go. I hope that my colleague will agree with that.

Mr. GLENN. I yield such time as I have to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I thank my friend from Mississippi. I just want to reinforce what the Senator from Virginia just said. Senator Ford, as ranking minority member on the Rules Committee, would normally be on the floor, managing this bill. Since I had been ranking minority member over at Governmental Affairs, which is involved with this very deeply, he asked me to take his place here today. I should have noted that at the beginning of the session today, before I made my speech. But he will be missed. I was sorry to see my good friend, Wendell Ford, who came here the same time I did, make a decision to not run again. I know some of the pangs of going through that decision, having gone through those pangs myself just a short time ago. And I am sure I will want to say more tomorrow, but that is the reason he is not here floor-managing the bill.

Mr. GLENN. How did that change the formula, changing the money?

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, before I introduce my amendment, I would like to correct the statement I made in the earlier debate. The Democrats voted against the $6.5 million recommendation that came out of the committee, but we were outvoted on that at the end. We had favored the smaller amount and letting the committee back for additional allocations of money as were required later on if paydirt was being hit, if the hearings were being fruitful. So, the original resolution to rules went with a partisan vote on the money, but not on the scope because there was unanimous agreement on the scope. And that is what now is largely at issue here. So I just wanted to correct that so there would be no misunderstanding on it. Amendment No. 21 (Purpose: To clarify the scope of the investigation, and for other purposes)

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GLENN. Madam President, we are now into the second week in March. The Senate has been operating for approximately 2 months. I don't know that we have had much in the way of accomplishment during that time period. Certainly, there are national problems that should be addressed. For example, we ought to be working on balancing the budget instead of just trying to pass amendments, which we tried to do, and it failed. We also have a series of problems with our health care system. Managed care may be saving money, but there is increasing evidence that it is happening at the expense of lower quality of health care. So, for uninsured Americans, that continues to be a major problem. As far as health care goes, we are going to have a debate, I guess, about partial-birth abortion. In other areas, the stock market has gone through the roof. Unemployment is at a 25-year low. But there is concern about the future, and about Social Security and Medicare. But there are no serious proposals by the Republican majority to deal with these issues. Well, today we have an opportunity. We have an opportunity to have the possibility of beginning a serious discussion about a serious issue: the campaign finance system used by both political parties in the United States. The American people are disgusted by what they see in campaign finance. And they should be. Along with the steady drumbeat of antigovernment ideologues, it is a major factor in America's loss of faith in our institutions of government. It is that serious. All you have to do is look at the polling data and such things as decreased participation in voting. If this trend continues, if America goes downhill because of the lack of confidence in our Federal Government, I say that we face a crisis that could literally threaten the foundation of democracy in the United States. There is a remedy to avert this crisis, as I see it, and to begin the restoration of public support for this system of government. The remedy requires that we reform the campaign finance system. It is a wonderful place to start because it certainly needs reforming. Will this get a serious examination by Congress, or will we get sidetracked by a partisan political circus? The jury is definitely out on that at this time. We have before us a resolution to fund a Senate investigation which, if the scope were made broader than it currently is, has enormous potential as a tool to stimulate public pressure on Congress to enact meaningful campaign finance reform, honest campaign finance reform. Recent revelations about fundraising involving 1996 Federal races are disturbing. They involve both parties in both congressional and Presidential campaigns. The truth is that the current fundraising system, both Presidential and congressional, is scandalous. Having said that, in my opinion, most Members of Congress are honest elected officials, both over in the House and here in the Senate. They are honest elected officials trying to do a good job, albeit from different political philosophies. But that is our system. But the general public perception that money gets its way in determining policy is, indeed, true for too many. There is a public perception that access follows money, and anybody who has been around Capitol Hill very long knows that sometimes it does. Access can alter the balance of arguments weighed by a Member and his or her staff when deciding a course of action, be it a vote on the floor or in committee, a colloquy on the Senate floor, introduction or cosponsorship of a piece of legislation, floor speech, insertion of language in a committee report, or a communication with an executive branch agency requesting an action, or the withholding of an action. But even when there is no connection whatsoever between a donation by a person to a politician and the latter's specific action as a legislator favoring that person, the perception of a payoff, even the possibility of a perception of a payoff, is corrosive to public trust in our Government. We must dispel this growing perception that Congress or parts of Congress are for sale if we are to reverse electoral apathy and restore faith in our Government. Gift bans have not done it. Honoraria bans have not done it. Only deep changes in the campaign finance system will do the job, and it will not be easy. The question is what should be the relationship of the Governmental Affairs Committee investigation to the drive for effective bipartisan campaign finance reform? The resolution before us, S. 39, as amended by the Rules Committee, states that the supplemental funds to be given to the Governmental Affairs Committee for this investigation are for the sole purpose of an investigation into illegal activities in the 1996 Federal election campaign. There are two things wrong with this statement of scope for the investigation. The first thing is that it is a bald-faced attempt by the Republican majority of the Rules Committee to undo a unanimous bipartisan agreement among the members of the Governmental Affairs Committee to have a broad investigation that would examine improper as well as illegal activities along with previous campaigns. Contrary to the claims of the Rules Committee chairman that his language tracks the Watergate resolution, the fact is that the Watergate resolution called for an investigation of improper and unethical activities as well as illegal ones. I am looking at a copy of the Watergate resolution that was passed in the Senate back in 1973. It was submitted by Senator Ervin, Sam Ervin and Mike Mansfield. In part 15 on page 8, it says they are ``to look into any other activities, circumstances, materials or transactions having a tendency to prove or disprove that persons, acting either individually or in combination with others, engaged in any illegal, improper, or unethical activities in connection with the Presidential election of 1972, or any campaign, canvas, or activity related to such election.'' That is the language of one of the parts of what the Watergate Committee was to look into--any illegal, improper, or unethical activities in connection with the Presidential election of 1972. The narrowing of the scope of the Governmental Affairs investigation by the Rules Committee is nothing more than a blatant pander to those elements in the Republican Party that do not wish to reform the campaign finance system and who are quite willing to scuttle the Governmental Affairs investigation if necessary to avoid creating public pressure to pass a decent bill. How does narrowing the scope to illegal activities avoid this problem for the Republicans? The first thing to understand is that the problem with the campaign finance system is not just what politicians do that is illegal. It is what politicians do that is legal that is an equal scandal, and it happens every single day on Capitol Hill and with both political parties. Let me give you an example. Let us talk about soft money. That is the best example. One of the most pernicious influences in politics these days is soft money. Let me give you an example of that. Let us say Senator X, whoever it might be, solicits $50,000 or $500,000 in soft money from a potential donor to his or her party, ostensibly for party- building purposes, get-out-the-vote drives or the like. But the party can then turn around and use the money on an issue ad during the Senator's reelection campaign that helps him or her and hurts the opponent. According to the Department of Justice, Senator X can even do the solicitation for that $500,000 from his or her office because the solicitation is not for his or her campaign specifically but, rather, for the Senator's party. This practice should be illegal, but it is not. Suppose Senator X wants a direct contribution to his or her campaign from a potential donor, direct to his personal campaign. In that case, Federal election law prohibits the donor from contributing more than $1,000 per person, and it must be in the donor's own name. But that same donor can go out and collect checks of $1,000 for Senator X from everyone he knows, bundle them together, and send them to the Senator's campaign. Let us say Senator X calls from the Senator's office for those donations. If Senator X calls, he is committing an illegal act. But if Senator X calls from outside, it is OK. Suppose Senator X is so grateful, wherever the call came from, for the donor's willingness to help that the next time the donor is in town and wants to talk to Senator X about a legislative matter he has an interest in, Senator X not only lets him into his office but he welcomes him and listens to his pitch. And suppose that Senator X is sufficiently concerned about maintaining the donor's political help that the Senator does what the donor wants on the issue and there was no discussion linking the donation to the donor's request or to the Senator's action. In that case, there has been no bribe. But it is certainly the case that Senator X made his decision on the issue as a result of the donor having had access to the Senator, access that was based at least in part on the donation the Senator was given. Now, suppose Senator X made the original call to the donor from the Senator's office phone instead of from an outside phone. That would be a violation of law. You cannot do that. Let me pose the question. Which is the worst ethical lapse, making the phone call from a legally prohibited place or letting the money influence the Senator's vote? I submit that the answer is not even close. Senator X's constituents and the people generally will have been ill served if he lets money influence his decision, and that overshadows the question of whether the phone he used was a private phone or a Government phone. What is the point of this fictitious example? Well, the resolution before us, which limits the scope of the investigation only to illegal activities, would allow an investigation of whether Senator X committed an illegal act by using a Government phone for the direct solicitation if there was an allegation that he had done so but would allow no investigation of the contribution, and if a soft money contribution was involved, whether Senator X's party had spent that money on certain ads helpful to the Senator's campaign, a legal practice but one that should be illegal. It is not just the independent expenditures by the major parties that is the problem. There are also the independent expenditures by outside private groups including tax-exempt organizations that should be investigated for possible collusion with party organizations. The Washington Post had an article yesterday concerning nonprofits. To quote them: ``Mysterious organizations that funded a flurry of attack ads at the end of the 1996 election,'' that were targeted mainly against Democratic candidates. No one apparently knows who supports them. One group, the Coalition for Our Children's Future, spent $700,000 on ads, mailings, phone banks, to help Republican candidates from Louisiana to California. Another group, Citizens for Reform, spent $2 million on ads, including a mailing labeling a Democratic candidate for Congress as sexist and anticonsumer. And this organization is tax exempt. They are not supposed to deal in political matters. In the case of tax-exempt organizations, collusion with a political party would be illegal but would not involve criminal penalties. In the case of a so-called 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, which is prohibited from engaging in political activity, there is the question of whether the placing of certain issue ads should be considered political activity under certain circumstances. Will this be investigated by the Governmental Affairs Committee under the funding resolutions' current scope statement? That will depend on how the word ``illegal'' is interpreted. I must say, at several points along the way we have had different interpretations of that word. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post article be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.