The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“TWO IMPORTANT ISSUES FACING CONGRESS” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S7888-S7889 on July 23, 1997.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
TWO IMPORTANT ISSUES FACING CONGRESS
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I intend between now and 11 to be joined by several of my colleagues to talk about, I think, two of the issues the Senator from Georgia has talked about. One of them that is most important for us, tax relief--I appreciate his comments. The other currently is the hearings that are being held with respect to the illegal contributions for campaigns. These, I think, at least at the moment, are two of the most important issues that face the Congress, two of the most important issues, obviously, that face the American people.
Tax Relief
First, in terms of tax relief, which has been talked about, it just seems to me that we have the opportunity for the first time in 16 years to have meaningful tax relief for Americans who are the ones who pay the taxes that support the Government. That is fairly simple. That is a fairly simple concept. And I wish, frankly, we could make it a little more simple. Obviously, in this place whenever there are issues, the technique is to make them as difficult as possible, to make them as detailed as possible, to make them kind of hard to identify. This one really isn't very hard to identify. The issue here is between having more Government and more revenue and more spending as opposed to the idea of seeking to reduce the size of Government, to reduce the spending, to reduce the burden on the taxpayers. And those things do go together.
We talk a lot, importantly, about the idea of balancing the budget. But I think we have to keep in mind you can balance the budget in a couple of ways. One of them is to have the highest tax increase in the history of the world and continue to grow in spending. The other is to seek to reduce spending, to seek to involve the States, to seek to return more government to local government and, therefore, reduce the size of government and the demands on taxpayers. Frankly, I think that is what we have tried to do in the last couple of years. I am very proud of the record of the Congress in the last 2 or 3 years, simply because we have changed the debate 180 degrees.
Three years ago we were talking about not how to reduce spending, not how to balance the budget, but simply, what new programs do we need? What do we need to do to continue spending? We were talking, then, about increasing taxes and did, in fact, increase taxes--the largest that has ever been done. Now we are talking about how do you reduce the size of Government. There is no debate about balancing the budget. It is just, how do you do it? When do you do it? That is a complete turnaround. That is a complete change. We are talking, now, more about how do you block-grant to the States so they can make the decisions as to how best spend the money that goes there. Surely, the concept of the closer to the people served that government is, the more effective it will be, is correct--is correct.
So I am very delighted that we have turned that thing around. Even though we continue to hassle, even though there will continue, always, to be debate about it, because, frankly, there is a legitimate difference of point of view. There are those who believe more Government is better. That is a legitimate point of view. It is not one that I subscribe to and I think, fortunately, not one that is subscribed to by the majority of the Members of Congress, but it is a legitimate viewpoint and it will continue to be argued--and it should be.
Illegal Campaign Contributions
The other thing, it seems to me, that is very important currently is the debate that goes on about illegal campaign contributions. Here again, it seems to me when you are out in Wyoming and you are listening to the TV or you listen to radio, you kind of get the notion that the whole thing is about campaign finance reform. In the broad sense, it is. But the fact is, there is a difference between reforming campaign finances on the one hand and talking about illegal contributions on the other. Those are two different things.
I think the Congress has a responsibility to have oversight hearings. The Congress has a responsibility to look into allegations of illegal contributions, and that is what the Thompson committee is primarily assigned to do. There is a difficulty in doing it, as we have seen take place here.
The idea of having the Justice Department involved makes it more difficult. Their unwillingness to give immunity to witnesses to testify so you can arrive at the facts has been a completely difficult issue. And I understand. One reason for the idea of the Congress doing this oversight is that, obviously, agencies have allegiance to the people who have appointed them and they become very edgy when you get into this whole wilderness of allegations of wrongdoing on the part of people who are affiliated to the people you work for. I understand that. That is the reason for having Congress do it. That is the reason for having independent counsels do it. As the Senator from Kentucky a few moments ago mentioned, it is clear there is a reluctance on the part of Justice to get into what they perceive to be a political kind of activity.
That is their task. The way they do it is to appoint an independent counsel. For some reason, the Attorney General has refused to do that. So what we are talking about, then, is having a hearing in which the truth about those allegations can be determined. I think that is, indeed, a responsibility of the Congress. It is something that we ought to be responsible to the American people to do, and I am delighted that it is happening. I only wish that it were less inhibited. I wish there were less constraints being imposed by the minority in this particular committee, less constraints being imposed by the Justice Department. We ought to know what the truth is, in these instances.
I happen to be chairman of the subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific rim. Yesterday, we had a hearing for the nomination of the Assistant Secretary for the Asia-Pacific area, which we need very much, and a very learned person has been nominated whom I am sure we will support. But just to give you some idea of the involvement there, with regard to this investigation, of course the activities with respect to China influencing elections, foreign policy, has been talked about. President Clinton has said:
[I]t would be a very serious matter for the United States if any country were to attempt to funnel funds into one of our political parties for any reason whatsoever.
Likewise, the Secretary of State said that, if true, the allegations that China had launched a major effort to illegally influence United States elections ``would be quite serious.''
I asked that question yesterday of the Secretary: Do you agree? And, of course, he said yes. The follow-up question, then, was both Republican and Democrat members of the Governmental Affairs Committee agree that there was Chinese involvement and a plan to move money into congressional elections.
So I asked, I think quite legitimately, what is the plan, then? How does this affect our foreign policy with respect to China? And the answer was, well, we just don't know whether these are true. We don't know whether that's there. We haven't made any accommodation, which only leads me to believe that it is even more important for this committee to arrive at what the facts really are. If these allegations are true, what will it do to our policy? It ought to have some impact on policy, certainly. But, yet, the response from the administration is, well, we just don't know.
We don't know either, but we ought to find out. And that is what the system is about. That is what the hearings are about. That is why there is such concern about the obstacles placed in the way of the committee by the Justice Department, by the Attorney General, by the administration--frankly, by our friends on the other side of the aisle, as to how we come to those decisions.
So, I think we are involved in a very serious issue here. It is serious because it has to do with process. It has to do with the obligations of the Congress to determine if, in fact, in this case, there were illegal activities carried on. That's our job.
Mr. President, I now am joined on the floor by the Senator from Arizona. I am very pleased to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming for obtaining time this morning to speak on this important issue.
____________________
