Thank you Mr. Chairman. I’d like to comment first on what I think are the legitimate purposes of this hearing. One of those is to review President Clinton’s use of his constitutional power to grant pardons in the closing days of his Administration with an eye toward making recommendations about the process by which the Justice Department reviews requests that the President exercise his power. We might also consider proposals for a constitutional amendment to limit the President’s power in some way. I don’t think, frankly, that a hearing done in the heat of public and press attention to particular controversial pardons granted by a single President in his last days of office is the best way to give a proposed constitutional amendment the scrutiny it deserves, but that certainly is a legitimate purpose for a Senate hearing.

      I do not believe, however, that holding a hearing simply to add to the public outcry over certain pardons or to launch attacks against the President or people in his administration is an appropriate use of our oversight authority. And so I am disappointed for one thing in the title of this hearing, "President Clinton’s Eleventh Hour Pardons." That sounds like a hearing designed for public relations effect, not for a balanced and forward looking inquiry about an important constitutional power of our nation’s chief executive. I recognize and appreciate the comments of Senator Specter concerning his intention to make this a hearing about the future, not the past. I have concerns about certain of the pardons myself as I will discuss in a moment. But we do not have the power in this body to undo President Clinton’s pardons. And so I hope that this hearing is more than just an opportunity for Senators to criticize our last President. I do not think hearings presented for that purpose are consistent with the spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship that we should be trying to create in this new evenly divided Senate.

      Now another purpose of this hearing might be to look at these most recent pardons and see if there are any lessons to be drawn concerning our criminal laws in this country. While they haven’t received the attention of the Rich pardon in the media, 20 of the so-called eleventh hour pardons involved people who received harsh mandatory minimum prison sentences for minor, non-violent participation in drug trafficking conspiracies. Mandatory minimum sentences impose irreversible, tragic consequences on many people in this country, particularly young people and their families. I hope this Committee will examine that issue at some point this year and perhaps learn from the people who were involved in these cases about the human dimension of mandatory minimum sentences and whether they are actually succeeding in accomplishing what their proponents predicted and hoped to accomplish. We should hold hearings not only to make headlines but to learn whether our laws are working, or failing.

      I also want to note, particularly with Mr. Eric Holder in attendance who did such an excellent job at the Department of Justice, that the President’s pardon or clemency power is particularly important when it comes to the awesome power of the federal government to execute people. I am very reluctant to limit the President’s power to rectify injustice when someone’s life is at stake. So whether the question is racial disparities in application of the death penalty, or actual innocence, or inadequate counsel, I think the President should be able to step in and show mercy.

      Mr. Chairman, while I am not entirely comfortable with the focus of this hearing, I do believe that legitimate questions have been raised about the pardon of Marc Rich in particular. And for me, as for many Senators, and many Americans, suspicions about this pardon arise from the fact that Marc Rich’s ex-wife Denise Rich was a large donor to the Democratic party. Not just a large donor, a huge donor. According to press reports based on the research of the Center for Responsive Politics, Ms. Rich donated $867,000 to Democratic Party committees during the Clinton presidency, and most of that was soft money. She also donated $66,300 to individual Democratic candidates in hard money. She also contributed $450,000 to President Clinton's presidential library fund. These kinds of numbers can’t help but raise questions about this pardon.

      But let me say also that they put a question squarely to members of this committee and the Senate as a whole: Will you do what it takes to end this corrupt soft money system that allows contributions of this size to the political parties? This is a system that now is providing at least an appearance of corruption in not only our legislative process, but our criminal justice system.

     There are members of this committee who have consistently filibustered our attempts to ban soft money. I’m happy to note that Senator Specter has consistently supported reform. But to those other Senators who have blocked reform, let me point out: Your filibuster prevented us in 1994, 1996, 1997, and particularly in1998 and 1999 when the House had passed a campaign finance reform bill, from changing the law and outlawing the enormous contributions Denise Rich made that raise these very legitimate questions about the pardon granted to her ex-husband. And remember, these same questions are going to be raised, and raised legitimately, about anyone that President Bush pardons during his term if friends, family, or associates of the person pardoned turn out to be contributors to the Bush campaign or the Republican party.

      So while there may be nothing that we can do about the Clinton eleventh hour pardons, there is something that we very clearly can do as a Congress to address the suspicions that some pardons have been or will be based on improper influence — we can pass campaign finance reform when it comes to the floor of the Senate next month.

      Thank you Mr. Chairman.

####