Fred Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON

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

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

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. THOMPSON. I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

Mr. THOMPSON. I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

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

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

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague. I join in the proposition that it is time we address the issue of campaign finance reform in this body. It is too bad that we are having to consider it in what may be considered the midst of a Presidential campaign year. It should not be a partisan matter. Senator John McCain, of course, has been the leader, along with Senator Feingold, on the bill on which I am privileged to be one of the original cosponsors. So we are trying to take a bipartisan look at it. We have spent entirely too much time in times past as parties trying to figure out what would be to our advantage and our disadvantage, and both parties have done that. Nobody really knows the result of reforms we might make in terms of the success of political parties. I continue to believe that the primary ingredient is the quality of the candidate and the quality of the message regardless of what rules we play under. I have the simple belief that there is too much money in the system. I know that it is becoming currently in vogue to say there is not enough money in the system; we need to have more. I do not believe that. I have had the opportunity in very short order to run as a challenger. I am now running for reelection after 2 years. Because I had the unexpired term of Vice President Gore, I am now running as an incumbent. I have seen it from both sides. It takes entirely too much time to raise the millions of dollars it takes to run for political office in this country, time that we ought to be spending on the Nation's business. People are cynical of the system that we now have. After a brief rise in public opinion, it seems, after the last Congress, we are going right back to where Congress has always been in the view of the American people, and that is basically abysmally very low. People look at the huge amounts of money in the system that both parties raise, that all candidates raise if they have any hope of being successful, and they simply do not think there is no relationship between the huge amounts of money being paid out and the actions that are being taken. That is one of the reasons why people have less and less faith in their Government. It is heavily weighted toward incumbents. As I have said, I have seen it from both sides now, as the old song goes, and incumbency brings the finances that a challenger cannot bring against a well-entrenched incumbent who has had the opportunity to spend the last several years raising money and putting it back. Someone must have the temerity to go out and challenge him and overcome that big advantage the incumbent has. That is not a good system. It is not serving us well. We can look at the bottom line and tell it is not serving us well. It is not producing the results. Whether it is the fiscal policy or social policy or anything you want to look at in terms of the indicators as to what direction our country is going, it is not producing the results we want to see produced in this country. There are a lot of problems with any particular piece of legislation. I am sure there are problems with the piece that we will be supporting. To me, it is a much broader and more basic question than whether you have a $1,000 limit or a $500 limit or $250 or $5,000 or even whether you have PAC's or not. Political action committees were touted as a great reform measure just a few years ago. Now they are out of favor. I do not think it makes any difference. Individuals can contribute around PAC's anyway. PAC's at least are fully disclosed and there are some limitations on them. The same people contributing to the PAC's can contribute individually. So that is all kind of a sideshow as far as I am concerned. I think if we can do something about the overall amounts we will be making real progress. So I join with my colleague's statement, and I am looking forward to making some progress on this, this year.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I modify amendment No. 3699 with the text I now send to the desk.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I want to recognize the passing this week of a great entertainer and citizen, Sarah Ophelia Colley Cannon. Mrs. Cannon, better known as Minnie Pearl, was a tribute to the entertainment industry and to our community. She graced the stage of the Grand Ole Opry in Nashville, TN, with her animated humor for 51 years. Who could forget the stories of Grinders Switch, her straw hat with the $1.98 price tag still attached, and her well-known and beloved ``How-dee!'' Minnie Pearl made many contributions off-stage as well. She was a humanitarian who contributed much to her community. Many of her efforts were focused on fighting cancer. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan presented Mrs. Cannon with the American Cancer Society's Courage Award. In 1991, the Sarah Cannon Cancer Center at Centennial Medical Center in Nashville was dedicated in her name. I know that I join all Tennesseans and all Americans in saying that Sarah Cannon and Minnie Pearl will be sadly missed.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to offer on behalf of myself, Senator Frist, and Senator Mosely-Braun authorization legislation for historic preservation activity for buildings at historically black colleges and universities. This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to administer a program of grants-in-aid, from amounts authorized to be appropriated to carry out the National Historic Preservation Act for fiscal year 1996 through 1999, to eligible historically black colleges and universities for the preservation and restoration of historic buildings and structures on their campuses. This being African-American History Month, I believe it is important for us to step back and reflect on the contributions that African- Americans have made to the founding and building of this Nation. And more importantly, to reflect on the institutions and organizations that were built by African-Americans to meet the challenges, goals, and needs of their people. Historically black colleges and universities stand as a testament to the hopes, dreams, achievements, and struggle of a people previously denied opportunity and justice to overcome extreme adversity and who succeeded despite the imposition of almost insurmountable legal and social obstacles. This bill authorizes the Secretary to: First, obligate funds for a grant with respect to a building or structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places only if the grantee agrees to match the amount of such grant, with funds derived from non-Federal sources; and second, waive this matching requirement if an extreme emergency exists or is such a waiver is in the public interest to assure the preservation of historically significant resources. It authorizes funds for to complete preservation operations at Fisk University and 13 historically black colleges and universities in Delaware, the District of Columbia and throughout the South, based on the 1991 National HBCU Historic Preservation Initiative. In September 1987, the Office of Historically Black College and University Programs within the Department of the Interior developed a proposal for a project designed to restore and preserve historic structures on the campuses of HBCU's. In 1988, a special survey to identify candidates for inclusion in the program generated responses from 46 HBCUs nominating 144 structures for consideration. The initiative selected 11 of the most historically significant and critically threatened structures which will require an estimated $20 million to restore and preserve the structure. Projects to be funded under the program include: Gains Hall, Morris Brown College, Atlanta, GA; Leonard Hall, Shaw University, Raleigh, NC; Hill Hall, Savannah State College, Savannah, GA; St. Agnes, St. Augustine's College, Raleigh, NC; The Mansion, Tougaloo College, Tougaloo, MS; White Hall, Bethune-Cookman College, Daytona Beach, FL; Graves Hall, Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA; Howard Hall, Howard University, Washington, DC; Virginia Hall, Hampton University, Hampton, VA; Parkard Hall, Spelman College, Atlanta, GA; Administration Building, Fisk University, Nashville, TN; Lookerman Hall, Delaware State College, Dover, DE; Cooper Hall, Sterling College, Sterling, KS; and Science Hall, Simpson College, Indianola, IA. This bill is exactly the same as the bill that passed both the House and Senate in 1994 but died in conference due to the end of the session. The only changes made were to the effective dates. I am happy to be a part of preserving this important part of American history and urge my colleagues to join me in the effort.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to offer on behalf of myself, Senator Frist, and Senator Mosely-Braun authorization legislation for historic preservation activity for buildings at historically black colleges and universities. This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to administer a program of grants-in-aid, from amounts authorized to be appropriated to carry out the National Historic Preservation Act for fiscal year 1996 through 1999, to eligible historically black colleges and universities for the preservation and restoration of historic buildings and structures on their campuses. This being African-American History Month, I believe it is important for us to step back and reflect on the contributions that African- Americans have made to the founding and building of this Nation. And more importantly, to reflect on the institutions and organizations that were built by African-Americans to meet the challenges, goals, and needs of their people. Historically black colleges and universities stand as a testament to the hopes, dreams, achievements, and struggle of a people previously denied opportunity and justice to overcome extreme adversity and who succeeded despite the imposition of almost insurmountable legal and social obstacles. This bill authorizes the Secretary to: First, obligate funds for a grant with respect to a building or structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places only if the grantee agrees to match the amount of such grant, with funds derived from non-Federal sources; and second, waive this matching requirement if an extreme emergency exists or is such a waiver is in the public interest to assure the preservation of historically significant resources. It authorizes funds for to complete preservation operations at Fisk University and 13 historically black colleges and universities in Delaware, the District of Columbia and throughout the South, based on the 1991 National HBCU Historic Preservation Initiative. In September 1987, the Office of Historically Black College and University Programs within the Department of the Interior developed a proposal for a project designed to restore and preserve historic structures on the campuses of HBCU's. In 1988, a special survey to identify candidates for inclusion in the program generated responses from 46 HBCUs nominating 144 structures for consideration. The initiative selected 11 of the most historically significant and critically threatened structures which will require an estimated $20 million to restore and preserve the structure. Projects to be funded under the program include: Gains Hall, Morris Brown College, Atlanta, GA; Leonard Hall, Shaw University, Raleigh, NC; Hill Hall, Savannah State College, Savannah, GA; St. Agnes, St. Augustine's College, Raleigh, NC; The Mansion, Tougaloo College, Tougaloo, MS; White Hall, Bethune-Cookman College, Daytona Beach, FL; Graves Hall, Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA; Howard Hall, Howard University, Washington, DC; Virginia Hall, Hampton University, Hampton, VA; Parkard Hall, Spelman College, Atlanta, GA; Administration Building, Fisk University, Nashville, TN; Lookerman Hall, Delaware State College, Dover, DE; Cooper Hall, Sterling College, Sterling, KS; and Science Hall, Simpson College, Indianola, IA. This bill is exactly the same as the bill that passed both the House and Senate in 1994 but died in conference due to the end of the session. The only changes made were to the effective dates. I am happy to be a part of preserving this important part of American history and urge my colleagues to join me in the effort.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern over ongoing discussions in New York between Iraqi representatives and the United Nations Secretariat over possible implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 986. Should Resolution 986 be accepted by Iraq, $2 billion of Iraqi oil would be permitted to be sold on the international market over a 6-month period. A loosening of the economic embargo under Resolution 986 would occur without any linkage to the cessation of Iraq's drive to acquire weapons of mass destruction. The prospect of even a partial lifting of the Iraqi embargo at this time raises a number of concerns and may serve to remind Members of the continuing duplicity and intransigence of the Iraqi regime, and the costs the United States has borne as a result. Moreover, the fact that the recent discussions over implementing Resolution 986 have occurred in a virtual information black-out, without the input or oversight of the American U.N. Representative, adds additional concern. If accepted by Iraq, Resolution 986 would permit Iraq to sell oil in order to finance humanitarian goods and address ``the serious nutritional and health situation of the Iraqi people.'' Resolution 986 would not, however, require Iraq to cease its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction--the foremost reason sanctions were imposed against Iraq in the first place. While reducing the suffering of the Iraqi people is certainly a laudable goal, the cause of this suffering rests squarely and completely on the shoulders of Saddam Hussein. His continued refusal to accept relevant U.N. Security Council Resolutions regarding cessation of the production of weapons of mass destruction and his continued harsh internal repression against the people of Iraq are the causes of the economic embargo and the deprivations suffered by the Iraqi people, as well as others in the region. Despite apparent cooperation with U.N. monitors in some areas, evidence of Iraqi's ongoing effort to build weapons of mass destruction was obtained as recently as 2 months ago. On December 8, 1995, Jordan said it intercepted a shipment of missile guidance components bound for Iraq. A few weeks later, on December 26, Jordan intercepted dangerous chemicals on their way to Iraq. On December 15, 1995, the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) reported that Iraq continues to conceal and provide false information on its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. Mr. President, these incidents alone, even ignoring past acts of terrorism and weapons procurement, should be sufficient cause to continue fully the economic embargo against Iraq. Even a temporary allowance for ``humanitarian'' oil sales will decrease the pressure on Iraq to comply with U.N. requirements to dismantle its facilities for the production of weapons of mass destruction and could free-up other Iraqi resources for its weapons programs. Beyond ceasing production of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Saddam Hussein is also required to end the repression of Iraqi citizens under the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 688 enacted on April 1, 1991. The most recently available Human Rights Report issued by our State Department calls the human rights situation in Iraq ``abysmal''. Just a short excerpt from that report makes the case that conditions of Resolution 688 have not been met: Political power in Iraq is concentrated in a repressive one-party apparatus dominated by Saddam Hussein. . . . Systematic violations continued in all categories, including mass executions of political opponents, widespread use of torture, extreme repression of ethnic groups, disappearances, denial of due process, and arbitrary detention. Mr. President, I certainly do not wish more hardships on the Iraqi people beyond those they have already suffered at the hands of Saddam Hussein. But softening the pressure against his regime, while so many examples of outrageous and dangerous activities continue to confront us, makes no sense. Certainly reducing the pressure on Iraq now will not hasten the day when the Iraqi people can live free of the depredations imposed on them by Saddam Hussein. Even more alarming than a temporary easing of sanctions, however, are suggestions that UNSCOM may recommend lifting the Iraqi embargo entirely sometime this year. How such a recommendation could be contemplated so shortly after UNSCOM itself reported that Iraq continues to lie and hide information about its weapons program is baffling. Further increasing America's dependence on imported oil from a country with Iraq's openly hostile objectives is not in our national interest. On that point, I should also mention that on March 27 of last year, the Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on the subject of American dependence on foreign oil. Despite repeated findings over many years that the United States' national security is harmed by a dependence on foreign oil, this dependence continues to increase. I commend Chairman Helms for having held this hearing and recommend that colleagues concerned about our national dependence on foreign oil review the hearing record. In any case Mr. President, either a temporary easing of sanctions under Resolution 986, or a permanent lifting of sanctions pursuant to earlier Security Council Resolutions, should be accompanied by a full reporting to Congress of the effect on U.S. national security of any Iraqi oil sales, the steps being taken to ensure adequate protection of human rights in Iraq, and the international safeguards in place to protect against future weapons development by Iraq.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will serve to correct and clarify section 923 of title 18 of the United States Code affecting licensed firearms dealers. The bill amends the United States Code to permit the 200,000 Federal firearms licensees to conduct firearms business with other licensees at out-of-State gun shows. This legislation is needed to address the problem that federally licensed gun dealers have when they buy, sell, or trade high-end collector's arms at out-of-State gun shows. Most of these firearms are in the $2,000 to $10,000 range and are not the target of illegal arms traffickers. Under current law, when licensed dealers meet at an out- of-State gun show and conduct business, they must return home and ship the firearms via common carrier from their respective States of residence. In doing so, the dealers take great risk of loss, theft, or damage and great expense of shipping and insurance of what may be one- of-a-kind items. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, [BATF], has indicated that they would be willing to work with us ``to enact legislation which will reduce the regulatory burden on the legitimate firearms industry while maintaining adequate controls to combat the criminal misuse of firearms.'' They said they would have changed the regulations to allow these types of commerce if not for the prohibitions that they interpret to be in the law. I welcome this spirit of cooperation. This bill would make Congress' intent clear to the BATF that Federal firearms license holders are not the source of illegal gun trafficking. Federal firearms license [FFL] holders are already closely regulated by the Bureau as legitimate businesses. If a person is responsible enough to obtain a Federal firearms license in Tennessee, then he is responsible enough to conduct business in Kentucky, North Carolina, or California. The BATF already recognizes this fact but, because of the way the current law is written, it must, nonetheless, enforce the byzantine route to conduct business. All those concerned by the illegal use of firearms should support this bill, as direct transfer of firearms will improve the atmosphere ensuring that all guns will be recorded on dealers' books, thereby providing law enforcement agencies the records they need when firearms are used illegally. This bill has the support of the Collector Arms Dealer's Association which represents 50,000 gun dealers and collectors.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will serve to correct and clarify section 923 of title 18 of the United States Code affecting licensed firearms dealers. The bill amends the United States Code to permit the 200,000 Federal firearms licensees to conduct firearms business with other licensees at out-of-State gun shows. This legislation is needed to address the problem that federally licensed gun dealers have when they buy, sell, or trade high-end collector's arms at out-of-State gun shows. Most of these firearms are in the $2,000 to $10,000 range and are not the target of illegal arms traffickers. Under current law, when licensed dealers meet at an out- of-State gun show and conduct business, they must return home and ship the firearms via common carrier from their respective States of residence. In doing so, the dealers take great risk of loss, theft, or damage and great expense of shipping and insurance of what may be one- of-a-kind items. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, [BATF], has indicated that they would be willing to work with us ``to enact legislation which will reduce the regulatory burden on the legitimate firearms industry while maintaining adequate controls to combat the criminal misuse of firearms.'' They said they would have changed the regulations to allow these types of commerce if not for the prohibitions that they interpret to be in the law. I welcome this spirit of cooperation. This bill would make Congress' intent clear to the BATF that Federal firearms license holders are not the source of illegal gun trafficking. Federal firearms license [FFL] holders are already closely regulated by the Bureau as legitimate businesses. If a person is responsible enough to obtain a Federal firearms license in Tennessee, then he is responsible enough to conduct business in Kentucky, North Carolina, or California. The BATF already recognizes this fact but, because of the way the current law is written, it must, nonetheless, enforce the byzantine route to conduct business. All those concerned by the illegal use of firearms should support this bill, as direct transfer of firearms will improve the atmosphere ensuring that all guns will be recorded on dealers' books, thereby providing law enforcement agencies the records they need when firearms are used illegally. This bill has the support of the Collector Arms Dealer's Association which represents 50,000 gun dealers and collectors.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Senator from Maryland, and I thank the Chair. Mr. President, one of the highest honors that I have in serving in the U.S. Senate is the fact that I hold a seat once occupied by Howard H. Baker, Jr. I have no doubt that this seat will always be known as the Baker seat, and that is how it should be. This morning I rise and it is my honor to rise in support of the action of the Senate taken last night, just prior to adjournment. The Senate passed H.R. 2547 to name the new U.S. courthouse in Knoxville, TN, in the Senator's beloved east Tennessee, after Senator Baker. I know that the Howard H. Baker, Jr. Courthouse will always serve as a reminder of the love and respect that all Tennesseans, as well as all Members of this body, have for him.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Illinois for his eloquent and heartfelt remarks. He has the admiration of us all. He is going to be missed in this institution. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few minutes with regard to the issue at hand having to do with the subpoena and the President's claim of privilege to resist that subpoena. I have been called upon over the past several weeks and months on many occasions, by members of the media, and others, to comment on the Whitewater investigation, to give my opinion. Others have, too, I am sure. In my case, I was minority counsel to the Watergate committee many years ago. People want to draw those comparisons. I refuse to make those comparisons. I do not think it is appropriate to make those comparisons. In fact, I have said as little as possible about the whole matter. I left town as a much younger man, having spent a year and a half investigating Watergate, and I had been on another committee assignment or two as counsel to the U.S. Senate. Some time ago, I kind of became tired of investigating and, frankly, would like to spend more of my time in trying to build things up than in trying to appear to be trying to tear things down. I think there is something important going on here that has to be commented upon with regard to the issue at hand. It looks like perhaps something might be worked out with regard to this particular subpoena, with regard to the particular notes that are being sought by this subpoena, and I hope that is the case. But there is something more important that is happening here that is going to have ramifications, I am afraid, for the next several months in this body and in this country, and that is, we should not get so caught up in the fine print and lose sight of the fact that, once again, we have a President who is claiming privilege to shield information from a committee of the U.S. Senate and ultimately from the American people, and it is a very, very weak claim at best. But even if it were a strong claim, Mr. President, it concerns me greatly that the President, under these circumstances, with the history that we have in this country of congressional investigations and the obvious need that the Congress has and congressional committees have for information to get to the bottom of any perceived wrongdoing, that the President would choose to stand behind a privilege to keep this information from coming out. It cannot stand. It cannot be successful. I have watched the predicament that is unfolding in the Senate with increasing concern, thinking any day that it might be resolved, but by resisting this subpoena and trying to keep this information from the public, I believe the President is making a tragic mistake. His action will only serve to raise questions as to what is being hidden. It will keep this investigation alive much longer than it otherwise would. It will fuel the cynicism of a public that is already all too distrustful of its public institutions. And for what purpose? The White House says that the President is taking this position in order to defend a principle, and that principle is the President's right to private conversations with his attorney. But nobody is disputing that right. What is being disputed is the President's right to privileged conversations with lawyers who are Government officials paid by the taxpayers when the matters involved are personal in nature and do not have to do with the Presidency. This assertion of the attorney-client privilege by ordinary citizens in the face of congressional subpoenas have been consistently struck down by this Nation's courts. The privilege is designed, basically, for litigation between private parties. In case after case, the courts have concluded that allowing it to be used against Congress would be an impediment to Congress' obligation and duty to get to the truth and carry out its investigative and oversight responsibilities. If the President is claiming special status because he is President, then his assertion is really one of executive privilege and not attorney-client privilege. While I can still remember Sam Ervin's repeated admonitions that no man is above the law and that we are entitled to every man's evidence, I still concede that executive privilege can be a valid claim, under some circumstances. However, the President must assert it. As I understand it to this point, he has chosen not to assert executive privilege. Of course, there may be political consequences associated with the claim of executive privilege, but the President cannot have it both ways. He cannot assert attorney-client privilege as a defense to a congressional subpoena which, if asserted by a private citizen, would stand little chance of prevailing, and then try to place the shroud of the Presidency around it without claiming Executive privilege. As best I can tell, Mr. President, no President in history has ever claimed attorney-client privilege to defeat a congressional subpoena. Richard Nixon did not claim attorney-client privilege. He allowed White House counsel, John Dean, to testify. Ronald Reagan did not claim attorney-client privilege during Iran-Contra. Notes and documents of his White House counsel were produced, along with those of the lawyer for the National Security Council, the lawyer for the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and the lawyer for the Intelligence Oversight Board. In both of these investigations, those documents were produced without the claim of any sort of privilege. President Nixon finally claimed Executive privilege with regard to the White House tapes and, of course, ultimately saw his claim of privilege defeated in the Supreme Court in the case of U.S. versus Nixon. So if the President is going to assert greater privilege protection than any of his predecessors, perhaps he is doing it solely for the purpose of protecting a legal principle. But the President must understand that the people are going to assume that there may be other reasons, in light of this country's history. So let us examine the strength of the President's legal position. In the first place, an invocation of the attorney-client privilege is not binding on Congress. It is well established that in exercising its constitutional investigatory powers, Congress possesses discretionary control over witnesses' claims of privilege. It is also undisputed that Congress can exercise its discretion completely without regard to the approach that courts might take with respect to that same claim. In the 19th century, House committees refused to accede the claims of attorney-client privilege that developed from actions taken during the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson and in the investigation of the Credit Mobilier scandal. House committees in the 1980's also rejected claims of attorney-client privilege. For example, in 1986, the House voted 352 to 34 to deny the privilege claims of Ferdinand Marcos' attorneys. The Senate, too, has rejected invocations of attorney-client privilege on numerous occasions. In 1989, the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation rejected the privilege claim with respect to its investigation of restrictive agreements between nuclear employers and employees who might impact safety. The subcommittee's formal opinion rejecting the claim of privilege asserted: We start with the jurisdictional proposition that this Subcommittee possesses the authority to determine the validity of any attorney-client privilege that is asserted before the subcommittee. A committee's or subcommittee's authority to review or compel testimony derives from the constitutional authority of the Congress to conduct investigations and take testimony as necessary to carry out its legislative powers. As an independent branch of government with such constitutional authority, the Congress must necessarily have the independent authority to determine the validity of non-constitutional evidentiary privileges that are asserted before the Congress. Importantly, as the Congressional Research Service found, ``No court has ever questioned the assertion of that prerogative * * *.'' Indeed, a 1990 Federal court decision, In the Matter of Provident Life & Accident Co., found that whatever a court might hold concerning application of a claim of attorney-client privilege in a court proceeding, ``is not of constitutional dimensions, [and] is certainly not binding on the Congress of the United States.'' Instead, committees, upon assertion of the privilege, have made a determination based on a ``weighing [of] the legislative need against any possible injury.'' This longstanding history, Mr. President, of discretionary congressional acceptance of the attorney-client privilege reflects the basic differences between judicial and legislative spheres. The attorney-client privilege is not constitutionally based. It is a judge- made doctrine based on policy considerations designed to foster a fair and effective adversary legal system. It theoretically promotes the interest of an individual facing an adversary civil or criminal action. But the U.S. Senate is not a court. We do not have the authority to make final determinations of legal rights, or to adjudicate individuals' liberty or property. In fact, it is probably unconstitutional under the separation of powers doctrine for us to be bound by judicially created common law rules of procedure. Under Article I, section 5 of the Constitution, each House determines its own rules. And the rule of this body in connection with attorney-client privilege claims is longstanding and consistent: We balance the legislative need for the information against any possible injury. And, of course, a committee of this body has made that determination. Does President Clinton want to rely on a technical, legal defense when the issue is whether his own White House has engaged in wrongdoing? The legislative need is obvious: to determine the truth of allegations of potential wrongdoing at the White House. Enforcing the subpoena furthers that interest. The integrity of the investigatory process is at stake here. The President's only potential interests are the free flow of information that is protected by Executive privilege, and the desire to shield what is potentially damaging information. To me, the balance is very clear: The subpoena must be complied with. Even if we were to abandon our historic discretionary consideration of attorney-client privilege in favor of adopting judicial rules for its application, we would still reject the objections to the subpoena. Courts would not find the attorney-client privilege to apply on these facts. Courts do not view the attorney-client privilege as a fundamental judicial procedural requirement that is vital for fairness. The most prominent expert on the law of privileges and evidence, Dean Wigmore, wrote of the attorney-client privilege the following: ``[i]ts benefits are all indirect and speculative, its obstruction is plain and concrete * * *. It is worth preserving for the sake of a general policy, but it is nonetheless an obstacle to the investigation of truth. It ought to be strictly confined within the narrowest possible limits consistent with the logic of its principle.'' The second, sixth, and seventh circuits have all adhered to that approach. Although the submissions by the White House counsel's office and the Clintons' private attorneys read the privilege very broadly, the courts construed it very narrowly. Courts universally require the party asserting the existence of the attorney-client privilege to bear the burden of establishing its existence. Blanket assertions of the privilege are rejected. The proponent must demonstrate conclusively that each element of the privilege is satisfied. This means that specific facts establishing an attorney-client privilege must be revealed. Conclusory assertions are not sufficient. And the proponent must also prove that the privilege has not been expressly, or by implication, waived. In this respect, it must be noted that courts have rejected the linchpin of the President's argument supporting the existence of an attorney-client privilege here. He claims that if the information requested by the subpoena were produced to the special committee, the privilege would be waived as to other conversations in other proceedings. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit specifically has held to the contrary. In its 1979 decision Murphy versus Department of the Army, the court ruled that disclosure of allegedly privileged material to a congressional committee would not waive the privilege in any future litigation. As CRS notes, ``There appears to be no case holding otherwise, and several which have followed Murphy.'' The President simply has not proven that the elements exist which are necessary to satisfy the attorney-client privilege. For courts to accept the privilege, the attorney must be acting as an attorney for the client and the communication at issue must be made for the purpose of securing legal services. That is not true here for two major reasons. First, attendees at the critical November 5 meeting, including individuals who were not acting as attorneys for President Clinton. Bruce Lindsey is a lawyer, but he did not act as the President's lawyer in this meeting. Nowhere in either the White House or Clinton personal lawyer submissions is any claim made that Mr. Lindsey passed communications from either the President or Mrs. Clinton to any other lawyer. Nowhere in his testimony before the special committee did Mr. Lindsey establish that he was present at this meeting as a lawyer for President Clinton or that he discussed confidential communications between himself and the Clintons. Several of those present were Government lawyers, including Mr. Kennedy, to whom the subpoena was directed, Mr. Nussbaum and Mr. Lindsey. And a Government lawyer cannot establish a personal representational relationship with the President about a private matter. In prior administrations, when the President had private legal issues, a private attorney was hired because the Government attorney could not raise the attorney-client privilege in the context of a Government investigation. That is the situation we have here. This was particularly true where the facts that were the subject of a Government investigation relate to the President's personal, not official, acts. Here, of course, the acts are not only personal, but predate President Clinton's assumption of the Office of the Presidency. So the discussion, by the President's own admission, concerned logistics, dividing responsibilities among different groups of lawyers, not providing legal advice. Such communications simply fall outside the scope of the attorney-client privilege. In fact, they are no different than any other communications among Presidential advisers. Their character is not changed by the fact that some of the participants have law degrees. Hence, to the extent that official Government business was discussed at this meeting, the only theory preventing its disclosure would be, again, executive privilege, which the President refused to invoke. Moreover, the communications at this meeting were made in the presence of persons who were not lawyers for President Clinton. Because the attorney-client privilege inhibits discovering truth, the courts are quick to find that the privilege has been waived. Where attorneys voluntarily disclose confidential client communications with a third party, the privilege is destroyed. The communication is no longer confidential and a justification for the privilege disappears. Confidentiality was lost for these communications because attorneys for the President shared information with others who did not represent the President. Lawyers cannot serve two masters. Those who represent the Government as a client do not represent the President as a client. For this reason, the President's claim of a joint defense privilege is not applicable. President Clinton raises this argument because he claims that the conversation of November 5 involved two clients: The President in his official capacity, and the President in his personal capacity. But these are not two different clients facing a common adversary. The President in his official capacity is represented by Government lawyers. A Government lawyer's client is the Government, and that client's interest may be to enforce the laws against the President as an individual. That is a different interest than that represented by the President's personal lawyers. Thus, these lawyers were potential adversaries, not lawyers sharing information for multiple clients against a common adversary. Additionally, courts have adopted the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. Courts will not apply the privilege to communications that may facility the commission of improper acts. The notes that are the subject of the subpoena concern a meeting at which discussions may have been held about certain information that may have been improperly passed to private lawyers for purposes of preparing a defense. The work product privilege has also been raised, Mr. President, but it does not apply to this conversation, either. The attorney work product privilege is not constitutionally based and applies to Congress only on a discretionary basis. Further, it is qualified. It is not absolute. The sufficient showing of need will brush aside the work product privilege. The Clinton briefs quote broad generalities about the privilege, but as the Supreme Court held in Hickman v. Taylor, ``We do not mean to say that all [] materials obtained are prepared * * * with an eye toward litigation are necessarily free from discovery in all cases.'' The materials at issue were not prepared in anticipation of litigation on behalf of President Clinton. Mr. Kennedy was a Government lawyer. His notes could not have been taken in anticipation of preparing litigation strategy for President and Mrs. Clinton. His client was the Government, not the Clintons, therefore, work product privilege is simply inoperative. Even if this doctrine applied, it is readily overcome when production of material is important to the discovery of needed information. Some courts have even refused to call the doctrine a privilege. In short, Mr. President, President Clinton simply has not met the burden of showing that either of these privileges apply to the notes that are the subject of this subpoena. His legal position is unprecedented and extremely tenuous. Clearly, Congress does not have to honor such a position. I suggest to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we do not want to establish a precedent that says that future Presidents can use White House counsel with regard to personal matters or even matters that occurred before the President was elected and be shielded from congressional inquiry. With regard to the references to partisanship that we have read and heard so much about, now that the battle lines have seemingly been drawn on this matter, we are told it will pretty much be a partisan vote. I find it somewhat ironic that over the past several years that many of those who wanted to investigate seemingly everything that came down the pike, now have gotten to be sensitive about congressional overreaching and partisanship. Unfortunately, it always just seems to depend on whose ox is being gored. You look back over the congressional investigations and you will see that invariably there is some partisanship involved in it because the majority party investigates the President of the other party and the minority party cries ``politics'' and talks about how much money we are wasting and how much money we are spending. I remember those conversations back when some of these other investigations over the years were started. The pattern seems to be the same. So now we can all assume our natural and customary positions as Republicans and Democrats, or we can actually look to the merits of the case. I suggest that we do that. I think the American people would appreciate it. It would not be unprecedented. The vote in the Senate to form the Watergate Committee, for example, was a unanimous vote at a time when still most people thought that it was, in fact, a third-rate burglary. When it came time to subpoena President Nixon's White House tapes, the vote on the Watergate Committee was unanimous, including that of the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye. When it came time to sue the President to enforce that subpoena, I signed the pleadings as counsel to the committee. All this was not because the proceedings were totally free of partisanship. It was because we believed the privilege was not being properly asserted by the President. I respectfully suggest that the same is true here. I still have hope that the President will reconsider his position-- not over the question of a handful of notes--over the general proposition of whether at this particular time in our history we want to see another President claim a privilege to keep information from the American people. We are not writing on a blank slate here, Mr. President. Our country has a history with regard to such matters and it has had an effect on us as a people. This day in time when a President who withholds information from the public has a higher duty and a higher burden than ever before. The people want the facts. They want the truth. The President, any President, should have a very good reason for denying it. The President in this case simply does not have one. I yield the floor.