Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. No, I will not yield. I will yield in a moment. Another thing that galls this Senator is if and when the President thinks he can legislate by radio address. The President is the Chief Executive Officer in the country, but under the Constitution he does not have legislative powers to legislate by Executive order or to legislate by radio address. I think, frankly, he crossed that line again on Saturday. That is unfortunate. If he wants legislation, we are willing to consider legislation. The President talked about having internal appeals and so on. We have internal appeals in our bill. We have external appeals in our bill. So if the President likes that provision, he can take it up. And he should urge our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle to take this legislation up and pass it. We are giving a reasonable unanimous consent request to bring it up. So I just hope that, again, common sense would prevail and that we would take the legislation up under a reasonable time limit. I mention that the counteroffer that we received in July was not three amendments a side; it was 20 amendments a side. That would be 40 amendments. That is ridiculous. That is not going to happen. I want to pass this legislation. Frankly, I have invested a lot of time in this legislation, as well as Senator Frist and Senator Collins, Senator Jeffords, Senator Gramm--many of our colleagues--Senator Santorum. We worked for months on this legislation. I also want to take just a little issue with our friend from Illinois. He said, ``Isn't it true that the Republican bill left out millions of Americans?'' That is false. We gave every single American that has an employer-sponsored plan an internal appeal and external appeal. And that is not in current law. We believe it should be legislated, not deemed by Executive order. And so to say, ``Well, they don't have protections under the Republican bill'' is absolutely false. We do not have 300-some mandates as proposed by the Democrat bill. We do not have 56 new causes of action where really it would say it would be health care by litigation. We have health care to be determined by physicians, not by trial attorneys. So, yes, there is a difference between the bills. We are saying: Fine. You have a legislative proposal. We will let you offer it. We will find out where the votes are. We have a legislative proposal. We will offer it and find out where the votes are, and maybe offer a couple of amendments. And we can dispose of the bill. We can pass the bill. We can go to conference with the House, hopefully work out the differences with the House. Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, after notification of the Democratic leader, shall turn to Senate bill S. 2330 regarding health care. I further ask that immediately upon its reporting, Senator Nickles be recognized to offer a substitute amendment making technical changes to the bill, and immediately following the reporting by the clerk, Senator Kennedy be recognized to offer his Patients' Bill of Rights amendment, with votes occurring on each amendment, with all points of order having been waived. I further ask that three other amendments be in order to be offered by each leader or their designee regarding health care, and following the conclusion of debate and following the votes with respect to the listed amendments, the bill be advanced to third reading, and the Senate proceed to H.R. 4250, the House companion bill, that all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the text of S. 2330, as amended, be inserted, and the Senate proceed to a vote. I further ask that following the vote, the Senate bill be returned to the calendar.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. Yes. It is unfortunate because my Democratic colleagues are not able to take yes for an answer. I regret that.

Mr. NICKLES. Only the Senate version. What we would do is strike the House language and insert the Senate language--what we always do when we consider legislation. To respond to my colleague, the text of the Senate language would be sent over to the House under the H.R. number.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is absent because of illness. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell) would each vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem be permitted to meet on July 31, 1998 at 9:30 a.m. for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, July 31, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. in room 226 of the Senate Hart Office Building to hold a hearing on: ``Drugs, Dignity and Death: Physician Assisted Suicide?''

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, July 31, 1998, to conduct an oversight hearing on mandatory arbitration agreements in employment contracts in the securities industry.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, July 31, 1998. The purpose of this meeting will be to mark-up legislation related to the year 2000 computer problem and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, July 31, 1998. The purpose of this meeting will be to review pending nominations to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and vote on confirmation.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with a very sober, very serious discussion. That concerns the role, the effectiveness, and the job that the Attorney General of the United States is currently doing. The Attorney General, under title 28 of the U.S. Code, section 515, is vested as the chief law enforcement officer of the country. That is a very important vesting of power. She is the chief law enforcement officer of the country. She has the responsibility of making sure the laws are carried out, as part of the executive branch. Congress, some time ago, realized that every once in a while there might be a conflict of enforcing the law strictly, if there are allegations of impropriety with members of the executive branch, so the independent counsel statute was passed. It was passed as a follow-up to Watergate. Can you really investigate your own boss? Can the Attorney General investigate the President or Vice President or some other Cabinet official because they are serving with those individuals at their pleasure? As a matter of fact, Attorney General Reno was appointed and confirmed by the Senate in, I believe, 1993; and then there was some speculation she would be reconfirmed or reappointed by the President, and subsequently she was. Since that time, I think all of my colleagues, and certainly all the country, know that this administration has had a lot of legal conflicts and problems. One of the biggest issues was the issue of campaign finance. Both the House and Senate have conducted hearings. I presently serve on the Governmental Affairs Committee that conducted an investigation all of last year over alleged campaign finance abuses. The committee, at least amongst the majority of the committee, albeit mostly Republicans, said, yes, there should be an independent counsel appointed. We made that recommendation to the Attorney General. She has ignored that recommendation, and regrettably so. Mr. President, I might mention a few things. I said she is in charge of making sure the laws are enforced. I am looking at one, and I could spend hours going through the law and stating allegations that I think this administration was in violation of, that she has not enforced, or to give reason for the appointment of an independent counsel so there would not be this conflict of interest. I will mention a couple of laws. Title 18, section 607, United States Code, states in clear and unequivocal terms: It should be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive any contribution in a Federal building. I could go on and mention the conflict of covered persons. Covered persons under this statute are the President, the Vice President. Vice President Gore has now admitted to making 52 fundraising calls from the White House. And the so-called coffees: There were 103 coffees in the White House attended by 1,241 people. They raised $26.4 million and I think are in direct violation of the statute. President Clinton hosted an average of two coffees per week during the reelection cycle; Vice President Gore attended over 100 coffees in 22 months before the election; 92 percent of the coffee attendees contributed to the DNC in the 1996 election cycle. I could mention the overnighters. President Clinton, in a handwritten note to a memo on January 5, 1995, told his staff he is ``ready to start the overnights right away'' and asked for a list of $100,000 and $50,000 contributors. Altogether, there were 178 guests who were listed as long-time friends, public officials or dignitaries, or Arkansas friends, who contributed over $5 million to the DNC. Overnight DNC donors paid an average of $44,000 per family to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom. The White House was for sale, I think in clear violation of the law, Mr. President. I will mention a statement that Attorney General Reno made to the House Judiciary Committee on October 15, 1997. I ask unanimous consent that excerpts of Attorney General Reno's statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate the question by my friend and colleague. As I stated in my statement, one, I hope--I prefaced, I said if she does not appoint, if she does not appoint an independent counsel, then I think she should resign. And it is my hope that she will follow the wisdom of Director Freeh and Mr. La Bella, follow their advice and appoint an independent counsel. I hope she will enforce the law. As my colleague from Pennsylvania is aware, I think the law is very clear. The one you mentioned with the coffees, the statute says: It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive any contribution in a Federal building. The statute is pretty clear. It just has not been enforced. I appreciate your statement. I think if she resigned--whoever is acting--before any person would be confirmed by the Senate, we would try to have a very clear understanding that the law would be enforced. I would also mention--you mentioned John Huang. John Huang was in the White House 164 times. That is a lot of visits for a person who was primarily a fundraiser. I think clearly the law was abused; campaign abuses were very flagrant. And the law should be enforced. Hopefully, the Attorney General will take heed of the advice that the Senate Judiciary Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, the Governmental Affairs Committee, the investigative committee in the House, and as well as the FBI Director and her chief prosecutor, Mr. La Bella, have given, and follow that advice with the appointment of an independent counsel. I think it would help relieve her of a lot of criticism. And I think it would be the right thing to do. I think it would be enforcing the laws as the law is written. Mr. President, I again thank my colleague from West Virginia for his courtesy and also for his patience. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Chair. I now believe I have inserted in the Record all the subsequent statements that I have, including Attorney General Reno's statement before the Judiciary Committee, or at least excerpts of that. I thank my friend and colleague. I also thank my colleague from West Virginia for his patience and courtesy, that he always extends. I appreciate that. To my colleague from Pennsylvania, my time has expired.

Mr. NICKLES. I am almost finished. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that three editorials be printed in the Record, one of which is dated July 21, a New York Times editorial. The headline of it is ``Reno Flunks Law School.'' And just the last line says: Ms. Reno didn't get it. She comes not to expose political corruption, but to bury it. There is also a New York Times editorial from July 23 that says--I will just read this one paragraph---- The two people in the American Government who know most about this case--the lead prosecutor and the top investigator --are convinced that the trail of potentially illegal money leads so clearly toward the White House that Ms. Reno cannot, under Federal law, be allowed to supervise the investigation of her own boss. When it comes to campaign law, this is the most serious moment since Watergate. I ask consent that one additional editorial be printed in the Record. I will just read one paragraph. This is an editorial, dated July 27, from the Washington Times. It says: Like Mr. Freeh, Mr. La Bella has concluded that his investigation has satisfied both the provisions of the independent counsel law. Both have concluded that it is a conflict of interest for Ms. Reno to investigate these matters. Mr. La Bella also joined Mr. Freeh in concluding that Ms. Reno--for that matter, Mr. Radek--have misinterpreted the statute by establishing too high of a standard for the implementation of the independent counsel statute. FBI agent James Desarno, who was named to the task force as the highest ranking agent at the time Mr. La Bella was appointed, has also concurred with the recommendation for the independent counsel.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have the House Judiciary Committee, we have the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have the Governmental Affairs Committee all saying we should have an independent counsel. That was all done last year. We have the head of the FBI saying we should have an independent counsel, and we have the special prosecutor, brought in by Attorney General Reno herself to head up the investigation, saying we should have an independent counsel. They all came to the same conclusion that there was enough campaign abuse or alleged violations of the law that we should have an independent counsel to avoid the conflict of interest to investigate this matter further. It is unanimous, with one exception--Attorney General Reno. In her comments, following Mr. La Bella's remarks, since that was made public, she says, ``Well, we want to discuss this with all of our attorneys. He was just one attorney.'' He was the lead attorney. He was the chief investigator. And Director Freeh is not just an attorney, he happens to be the Director of the FBI. And if he issued a 27-page report calling for an independent counsel, I think she should adhere to it. I am bothered by the fact that if we had the chief law enforcement officer of the country not enforcing the law, not listening to the recommendations of her chief investigator, Mr. La Bella, not following the recommendations of the Director of the FBI, then I do not think she is enforcing the law. And that bothers me. So, Mr. President, it is with some regret--I do not do this very often--but I think if Attorney General Reno does not appoint a special counsel under the independent counsel statute to investigate campaign abuses by this administration, I think she should resign. I do not think she is doing her job. I think she is involved in more of a coverup of the President's activities or the White House's activities than she is enforcing the law. I hope she will change her mind. I hope she will review the memo that Director Freeh and Mr. La Bella have given her and follow their advice. Those two individuals are not partisan Republicans. They are not the chairman of the Republican Judiciary Committee or the House Judiciary Committee or they are not Senator Thompson or other members on the Governmental Affairs Committee. They are appointees by this administration. I give them great credibility. I hope that she will follow their advice. Mr. President----

Mr. NICKLES. He discussed in detail Vice President Gore's telephone conversations, the President's telephone solicitations, the need for independent counsel in both cases. It is the Director's ultimate conclusion it should be referred to an appointment of an independent counsel as part of a broader scheme to circumvent campaign finance law under either the mandatory or the discretionary provisions of the statute. He held the same conclusion with regard to White House coffees, the overnights, and other perks, and that would include Air Force One. He also talks about the scheme to evade the law. When the President agrees to take public funding of a Presidential campaign, he says: Here is how much money we are going to raise and spend. Clearly, the White House, and Mr. Harold Ickes and other people, tried to circumvent the law and say: We are going to raise lots and lots of money, the White House will do it, and we will basically get around these limits. Director Freeh obviously thinks that should be investigated and may well think it should be investigated for both parties. I am not making any aspersions. I am just saying that we should have an independent counsel. If Director Freeh has studied this as long as he has--he is the chief investigative officer of the country as head of the FBI--if it is his strong conclusion, with a 27-page memo, that we should have an independent counsel, then we should have an independent counsel. He gave that memo evidently in November of last year, and the Attorney General has yet to appoint an independent counsel. I could go on. I have already inserted most of this into the Record. I will skip and just make the comment that if you have the Director of the FBI--I think his concluding comment, and I will quote this from Senator Thompson's statement: It is difficult to imagine a more compelling situation for appointing an independent counsel. That is from Director Freeh. That is not a partisan Republican. That is from a former Federal judge who is now Director of the FBI, who made that analysis after conducting a very extensive investigation. He says we need an independent counsel. I think the Attorney General should follow his advice. Now we have, evidently, the chief investigator that the Attorney General appointed in the Justice Department making the same recommendation. Again, I haven't read his memo. Evidently, he just issued a memo--this is prosecutor Charles La Bella. This is according to news reports. I will insert this in the Record. This is July 23, 1998--recently--written by David Johnson. It says: Prosecutor Charles La Bella delivered a report to Reno last Thursday as he prepared to return to San Diego this week to take over as interim U.S. attorney. La Bella has marked his department by challenging her to replace him with an outside counsel. I will read one section: But he contends only that their fundraising activities warrant outside investigation, and in the legal analysis La Bella concluded that Reno misinterpreted the law, creating an artificially high standard to avoid invoking the independent counsel statute. It also goes on in the article to say that, last fall, La Bella urged her to seek appointment of an independent counsel to investigate fundraising telephone calls by President Clinton and Vice President Gore but she rejected that recommendation. In summary, La Bella concluded there was sufficient information to warrant appointment based on mandatory and discretionary provisions in the independent counsel statute, meaning he found enough specific information to justify outside investigation of high officials. He found that the Justice Department could not objectively investigate them on his own, the official said. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, keep in mind that was last year, when the campaign investigation was going, and going very strongly. She had this to say concerning the investigation. She was talking about the investigators: Since they've begun their work, I have met with them regularly to hear what they found and ask them questions. I check on their progress several times a week discussing with them what evidence they have found and how they are proceeding. Most important of all, I told them from the start that they are to contact me immediately if they ever believe that evidence and law justify triggering the independent counsel statute. I and Director Freeh check with them regularly to ensure they have adequate resources. Later in her statement: As I stated then, the fact that we don't trigger a preliminary investigation under the act does not mean we are not investigating the matter. We are fully prepared to trigger the Independent Counsel Act and pursue any evidence that a covered person committed a crime if any should arise in the course of our investigation. We continue to investigate every transaction brought to our attention. We will not close the investigation of a matter without Director Freeh and I signing on its closure. She made a commitment that basically the major decisions would be made by the Attorney General and the FBI Director, former Federal judge, Mr. Freeh. I mention that because evidently Mr. Freeh made a detailed report, evidently a 27-page report, to the Attorney General in November of 1997 calling for an independent counsel. I am not inserting that report in the Record. I am going to read a couple of excerpts that Senator Thompson made before the Judiciary Committee, where Attorney General Reno testified on July 15 of this year, where he outlined several things that were in Director Freeh's memo. I will be very quick and maybe I will insert several pages of this in the Record. This is Senator Thompson talking about Director Freeh's investigation. He pointed out that the FBI's investigation has led them to the highest levels of the White House, including the Vice President and the President, and that the Department of Justice must look at the independent counsel statute. He pointed out there are two sections; one is a mandatory section where the Attorney General is required to appoint, and another one is a discretionary section. The ultimate conclusion by Mr. Freeh is that the statute should be triggered under both the mandatory and the discretionary provisions of the statute. I ask unanimous consent that the entire section of this dialog be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Again, I thank my colleague from West Virginia for his courtesy. I doubt I will take 15 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for not to exceed 15 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, again to my colleague, I am more than happy to defer. He is so kind and gracious, as he always is. He sets an example in the Senate, which I think all of us should follow and makes all of us proud to have the title of ``Senator.''

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia is so courteous, as usual. I have about a 10- or 15-minute speech, but I will be happy to listen to my colleague and then I will follow my colleague from West Virginia and I thank him, again, for his courtesy.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is absent because of illness. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``aye.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is absent because of illness. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''

Mr. NICKLES. I announce the the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is absent because of illness. I further announcd that, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is absent because of illness. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''