[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 25, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: May 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
IN REMEMBRANCE OF THE NORMANDY INVASION
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, some of our colleagues will depart soon
to attend the ceremonies in France, to commemorate the 50th anniversary
of the allied attack across the English Channel which we have come to
call D-day. It is appropriate that we commemorate this day which marks
a critical turning point in the largest armed conflict in the history
of mankind. Most importantly, it is fitting and right that we honor the
memory of those who fell.
The Normandy invasion is a well-documented military action. The scale
of the operation--the sheer numbers of people, ships, and planes
involved, as well as the effort to coordinate their movement in secret
from ports and airfields, and to synchronize their arrival at a place
which was defended by a determined enemy--surely defies description.
Historians tell us that the largest fleet ever assembled, almost 5,000
ships, crewed by more than 200,000 men, steamed across the choppy
English Channel to bring 58,000 soldiers to the invasion beaches. More
than 800 planes delivered 13,000 men by glider or parachute. The
magnitude of the operation was staggering; we are hard-pressed to
appreciate the complexity, and the difficulties which the participants
faced.
There were 6,600 American casualties on the first day of the
invasion, that 6th day of June, 1944. Among the American airborne units
alone, 2,500 men were killed or wounded. Just on that one ``Longest
Day,'' the Allies suffered over 10,000 casualties, and 1,465 American
men lost their lives. By the end of the Normandy campaign, American
casualties exceeded 63,000
The assault had been planned in detail, but much of what happened did
not proceed according to plan. Gliders broke their tow ropes over the
channel and others crashed on landing. Parachutists were dropped in the
wrong place, boats landed men at the wrong beach, and needed equipment
could not be found. Casualties were high, the weather was poor, and in
the early dawn hours it looked as if the assault would fail. It would
have been easy to give up by saying the mission was too hard.
But in places all over Normandy small groups of airborne soldiers had
assembled in the dark. With little or no contact with higher level
commanders, the senior person on the scene took charge of the
situation. The airborne troops had been dropped by parachute and glider
behind the main enemy lines. In fact, some landed among the enemy,
right in the middle of their positions. The primary mission of the 82nd
and 101st Airborne Divisions was to keep enemy reinforcements from the
invasion beaches. One fifth of the American airborne soldiers were
killed or wounded that day, but we succeeded in accomplishing our
mission.
The first assault waves took heavy casualties at Omaha Beach, and
exhausted men tried to find cover behind a seawall. Company A of the
116th Regiment lost 96 percent of their men before any man came close
enough to fire his weapon. It was clear very quickly that the
meticulous plan for Omaha was not going to work. But without waiting
for orders or instructions, the surviving leaders--many of them
sergeants and junior officers--improvised, took the initiative, and
personally led men off the beach and up the bluff. That had not been
the original plan, but it worked.
General Eisenhower had developed and executed the
strategy brilliantly, but the operation succeeded because brave men
came forward and persevered in the face of terrible odds. The history
of D-Day is replete with maps, with broad arrows showing the movement
of units, but we would always remember that the real story D-Day is
beneath those arrows, with the thousands of individual soldiers,
sailors, aviators, coastguardsmen and merchant mariners who earned the
victory.
Those were not the good old days, and no one who served at Normandy
longs for that simpler time when our enemies were clearly defined. I
listen to people carry on about how tough we have it today because the
world situation is so vague. I listen to some of the debate in the
Congress about problems and issues which are almost trivial. Our
problems pale in comparison to those of the men who fought and died at
Normandy.
Fifty years have gone by since that day. Now we look at the invasion
in retrospect, and we read about it in the ordered clarity of well-
written books. In an age where technology advances at lightning speed,
we watch in the comfort of our homes as film actors attempt to portray
the chaos of the combat, the horror of seeing men die in agony, and the
courage of brave men who overcame numbing terror. Some former soldiers
may write accounts of their experiences that day in newspapers and
magazines, or speak in public places. Now, someone who was present that
day, and participated in that action, stands on the floor of the Senate
of the United States, to offer a few humble words of respect for all
who sacrificed so much.
Mr. President, when people visit Normandy they look out across the
invasion beaches to the sea. They wonder how anyone could have survived
coming across those beaches onto the heights above. Some pause to
reflect on the courage of those who sacrificed there, and come away
more appreciative of freedom.
But behind the invasion beaches, Mr. President, on the bluffs and in
the hills, are the cemeteries where most of the invasion dead are
buried. The cemeteries of American dead stretch across Europe from
there, marking the path Americans took in a war against unspeakable
tyranny.
I encourage my colleagues to visit the cemeteries at Normandy, and to
spend some time in that setting. They will find the graves marked by
white marble crosses and Stars of David, arranged in precise rows which
seem to stretch as far as the eye can see. I encourage my colleagues to
read the names on those markers, and those which say simply, ``Here
Rests in Honored Glory a Comrade in Arms Known But to God.'' I know of
no better way to honor those fine men, or to measure the price of our
freedom.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York, Mr. D'Amato, is
recognized.
The remarks of Mr. D'Amato pertaining to the printing of the
amendment are contained in today's Record under Amendment Submitted for
Printing.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from New York
and other of my colleagues who will be speaking.
The Senator from New York just made, I think, a statement that I hope
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will agree with, and that is,
we have been very restrained on this matter--some would say too
restrained. We have been trying in good faith, and certainly the
majority leader has been trying in good faith, to come to terms on some
type of a forum, some type of committee. If I had my way, I would have
a select committee, where the leaders could each appoint members, so we
would be sure we had all of the jurisdiction covered.
The majority leader agreed that the Banking Committee should have
broadened jurisdiction for this purpose, and that we could somehow put
it together by adding members to the committee, others from other
committees, whether it may be Agriculture on the commodities question,
or maybe something else in the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee,
or maybe something on the Judiciary Committee. But in the Banking
Committee, the ratio is 11-to-8. It seems to me that it ought to be
even. There ought to be an even number of Republicans and Democrats.
So we have suggested, and the Senator from New York has outlined,
what we think is the fair way to approach it: Have a special
subcommittee in the Banking Committee. Let the ranking Republican,
Senator D'Amato, select 5, let the chairman select 5, and let the
leaders select 3 each, and then we would be able to proceed.
So let me suggest that we had the vote of 98-0, and the Senate in
effect directed the two leaders to come up with something to try to
determine the scope and timetable and forum for hearings into the so-
called Whitewater affair. We have had meetings in the past 2 months,
and we have exchanged letters, and we have kept our letters private. We
have not been trying to get press, neither I or the majority leader. We
have exchanged correspondence privately. We have not reached an
agreement yet.
I have written the majority leader as recently as yesterday. It is my
understanding that he will be back in touch with me tomorrow after a
meeting which is going to occur between the Speaker and the Republican
leader in the House. Congressman Michel and Speaker Foley are going to
meet with Mr. Fiske. Throughout this process, the majority leader has
acted in good faith and even today we are continuing our efforts to
trying to settle this issue.
As I say, I think we will get another response tomorrow. But the
point I want to make is this: That does not mean we should not try to
jump-start the negotiating process, and that is where Senator D'Amato's
resolution comes in.
As I said, the resolution, which reflects our latest proposal to the
majority leader, would create a 16-member special subcommittee of the
Banking Committee. The special subcommittee would be charged with
conducting all aspects of the Whitewater hearings. Throughout our
negotiations, Senator Mitchell has insisted the hearings be held within
the Banking Committee, despite the clear jurisdictional interest of
other committees--Judiciary, Small Business, Finance, Agriculture, the
Subcommittee on Parks, Public Lands and Forests, and the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations.
So this resolution accommodates Senator Mitchell's desire, but it
also gives Senators from other committees the opportunity to
participate in the hearings as well. It does not set a specific
timetable for hearings. Instead, it establishes a form for hearings,
the scope of the hearings, and then directs the chairman and the
ranking member of the special committee--that would be Senator D'Amato,
I assume, and Senator Riegle--to consult with Robert Fiske about
scheduling.
The hearing on one aspect of Whitewater could begin next month. A
hearing on another subject could begin next year. The Senate does not
have to play scheduling secretary with the hearings. But we do need to
get the ball rolling.
Again, as I said, I prefer a select committee. If we are going to go
this way, I think maybe a special subcommittee will meet most of the
concerns.
Let me say a word about the special counsel. We have heard a lot
about Robert Fiske. No doubt he is a very able lawyer. More impressive,
I think, are his skills as a bureaucrat. Somehow, for some reason, he
has the entire Congress fawning with deference, tiptoeing around the
investigation as if we cannot do anything without checking with him
first.
That is where we are making our mistake, as far as I am concerned. So
much for our own constitutional obligation and so much for the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, the Intergovernmental
Cooperation Act of 1968, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,
the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, and the Congressional
Budget Impoundment Act of 1974--five key laws that assign oversight
duties to congressional committees. So we have had our oversight
responsibility defined by statute. It is implied in the Constitution.
I can understand the unique demands of Mr. Fiske's job, but Mr. Fiske
and those of us in the Senate should also understand that Congress has
its own job to do as well.
Mr. Fiske's responsibility is criminal and civil prosecution. Our
job, Congress' job, is full public disclosure. Mr. Fiske was appointed
by the Attorney General. We were elected by the people of the United
States, by the citizens of the United States. Mr. Fiske gets his
mandate from the Department of Justice regulation. Our mandate, the
Senate mandate, comes from the Constitution itself.
Yes, we should try not to interfere with Mr. Fiske's investigation.
Yes, we should be sensitive to the unique needs of his investigation.
That is why we have given Mr. Fiske in this case a 4-month head start,
and that is why the Senate has also agreed not to grant immunity to any
hearing witness over his objection because we understand the concern he
has.
But, Mr. President, it is one thing to be differential and something
quite different when deference is used as an excuse to shirk our own
constitutionally mandated oversight obligation.
If we continue to drag our feet on hearings, a new term no doubt will
enter the American political vocabulary and the phrase ``taking the
Fiske''--that is in effect what we are doing; everybody is taking the
Fiske; we cannot do it because Mr. Fiske will not let us do it--will
soon replace ``passing the buck.''
As my colleagues know, during the Reagan and Bush administrations,
Congress was not shy in examining the peccadilloes of those in the
executive branch. More than 20 congressional investigations were
initiated to examine such high crimes and misdemeanors as the so-called
irregularities in Ed Meese's 1985 financial report. We had a hearing on
that alleged misuse of a gift fund by President Reagan's Ambassador to
Switzerland. And, of course, who can forget the mother of all
conspiracies, the ``October surprise.''
There is also plenty of precedent for conducting oversight hearings
while criminal and civil investigations are pending. Michael Deaver,
BNL, and BCCI all come to mind.
Finally, let us not forget that I think these hearings, as I said so
before--in fact last December and January when it is pretty lonely
around here--that hearings are in the best interests of the President
and Mrs. Clinton. I made the statement then; I make the same statement
now.
If there has been no wrongdoing, there is nothing to hide. Let us get
this behind us. And it seems to me that we need a full public hearing.
I think there will be a full public hearing.
Let me again stress--and I know my friend from New York, Senator
D'Amato, like all of my colleagues, I assume, have confidence in Mr.
Fiske--but he cannot have a veto on what we do in Congress. We are the
Congress of the United States. We are elected by the people in this
country. We have certain responsibilities.
I cited five statutes. It is also implied in the Constitution. We
have oversight responsibilities.
The very same laws that were invoked to have 20-some hearings during
the Reagan and Bush years have not been repealed. They are still there.
So I suggest that there is another reason for wanting to get this
forum put together. The Senator from New York will tell us it is going
to take a while to do all the things you need to do to get ready for a
hearing. It is going to take 30 days at least. I say we will agree on
some sort of a forum. Then we cannot tell you about the hearing until
we clear it with Mr. Fiske. Then, if he finally does clear it, we have
to wait 30 days to be prepared.
My view is let us cooperate where we can with the special counsel,
but let us get ready so when he says, if there is some agreement or we
decide as Congress should decide on its own, let us start phase one. We
are ready to start phase one instead of saying we can start but we are
not ready; we have to wait 30 days.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, will the leader yield for a question?
Mr. DOLE. I am happy to yield.
Mr. WALLOP. The Senator from Wyoming wanted to reach the inescapable
conclusion that, by refusing to come to grips with this, we are, in
fact, indulging in an organized coverup of something. Whether or not
that is true, the public impression of it has to be growing that there
is an unwillingness on the part of the majority party to come to grips
in ways in which they have come to grips as the leader points out with
Republicans. So the only inescapable conclusion is that there must be
something to hide; otherwise, the hearings would do a lot to alleviate
the President's Presidency from this overhanging cloud. Is that a fair
assumption?
Mr. DOLE. I think it is a fair assumption. I also think it is a fair
assumption to point out, as the Senator from New York did, we are not
slowing down anything around here except slowing down the hearing. That
is the only thing slowed down. We have not slowed down any legislation.
We have not stonewalled any hearings. We have not slowed them down.
There have not been any.
It seems to this Senator--in fact I was down in Kentucky when that
vote went Republican. The vote went Republican for the first time since
the Civil War last Friday.
A lot of people asked about hearings. When are you going to have
hearings? I do not know. Democrats or Republicans, there is a lot of
frustration in the countryside.
There are other factors involved in that particular election. They
wanted to send a message to all of us--all of us, the President, the
Congress, and everyone else that they were tired of all this
Government, all this health care stuff, and a lot of other things.
Maybe that may not be the reason the Republican won for the first time
in 119 or 129 years. But I think it was.
I think there is just a lot of frustration.
Is this a big, big issue? If you took a poll today, Whitewater
hearings, well, probably not as much as it was for a while, but once we
start I think the American people will understand that we have a
responsibility. Nobody is after anybody. No one as I know on this floor
or this side ever accused anybody of anything--nothing. We made no
allegation. We do have a responsibility.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me just ask. I know you have been
working closely with the majority leader to try to nail down how this
will proceed and when, and I note that that goes on in private and a
lot of confidences are involved. But the status, as I understand it, is
that you are exchanging some correspondence, you feel like you are
moving forward and are you of the impression that in June some hearings
will begin to occur or get ready for it. What is the status as best you
can tell us at this time?
Mr. DOLE. We are not lurching forward you know, but we are moving a
little bit. And it seems to me that, again, as I said, I think the
majority leader has been in good faith. I think he feels strongly we
should not move without Mr. Fiske. There will be a meeting tomorrow, as
I said, with Speaker Foley and Bob Michel and I understand Mr. Fiske or
his representative so Mr. Fiske can tell Congress we can go ahead and
do our job. It seems to me it is kind of strange. We ought to do our
job and tell Mr. Fiske he should do his job and not interfere with him.
The Senator from New York has made it very clear we are about to do
that.
But I would guess--and I have indicated this to the majority leader
directly and I think indirectly--that if we cannot come to some
agreement, we are just going to have to offer amendments here and have
votes. I know they can second degree anything we offer. But we did have
a vote, as I said, of 98 to zero a couple months ago that we were going
to go ahead and do these things.
I think the Senator from Mississippi and all of our colleagues who
are here today and others have been very restrained. We have not been
out here beating on everybody every day, saying: Why do we not do this?
Why do we not do this? Why we do not do this? We think, collectively,
it is about time.
I want to thank, again, the Senator from New York for his dogged
determination and for the preparation he has already made. I have had
an opportunity to look over the volumes of information, information the
Senator from New York has already compiled. I think he has enough right
now to start responsible hearings in a responsible manner, whether it
is RTC or whatever it might be.
So I hope we can start very quickly.
I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. The Republican leader referred to the congressional
race in Kentucky just last Friday. He and I were there together.
I would say, Mr. President, in further elaboration of what the leader
has indicated, there was one issue in that race, and only one, and that
was the Clinton administration.
And so there would be a temptation, I suppose, to interpret the
proposal that the distinguished Senator from New York has offered as an
effort to bash or pile on the Clinton administration.
But I would say I think the Republican leader was absolutely correct
when he made the point that it is actually to the advantage of the
administration, unless it has something to hide, to go on and get this
out, get it over with, get it behind him.
If I were sitting in the White House, having looked at the results in
Kentucky, I think I would say that the last thing I would want to
participate in as a part of the Clinton administration would be any
effort to impede what is a perfectly legitimate line of congressional
inquiry.
As the leader has pointed out, in the previous administrations, we
had hearings on everything; did we not, Mr. Leader?
Mr. DOLE. Nearly everything.
Mr. McCONNELL. Nearly everything.
And here we have a matter of obvious importance that the
distinguished Senator from New York has clearly outlined for us here
today and yet we cannot even get a schedule to go forward.
So I just want to thank the leader for his effort in this regard. I
want to thank Senator D'Amato for his leadership.
And I would say to the Clinton administration, if there is nothing to
hide, why not go forward? Let us just go ahead and have the hearings
and get it before the American public. If there is nothing to be
ashamed of, it would exonerate them.
I thank the leader.
Mr. DOLE. Let me just underscore what the Senator from Kentucky has
said.
Again, I think we started initially this last December 21, so here it
has been January, February, March, April, and we are about to go on a
recess and be back on June 7.
So I think any fair judgment would say, ``Jiminy, you Republicans are
pretty timid.''
We offered one amendment a couple of months ago. We tried to
negotiate. We are making some progress.
So I hope everybody will understand that if we do not work it out
when we come to the floor and offer an amendment, it is not that we
just rushed out here the day after somebody made some allegation.
In my view, we have tried to be cooperative. We have tried to listen
to the views to respect the authority that Mr. Fiske has, but we also
have some responsibility. And it is in the law and it is in the
Constitution and we are in the U.S. Senate and it is our
responsibility, too.
If we cannot work it out, we will just have to do what we have to do.
And if the Democrats want to vote it down the next 2 months, let them
vote it down 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 times. Let them vote it down. Then I
think we will get a better understanding.
Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join with my leader and the Senator from
New York in cosponsoring the resolution that has just been brought to
the desk to urge the Senate to move forward in developing a timeframe
and a specific process by which we could begin hearings on the
Whitewater affair.
I, like many of my colleagues around me this afternoon, have remained
silent for a period of nearly 3 months, since March 17, when this
Senate voted 98 to zero that we would agree to move forward with a
responsible approach towards reviewing, in our oversight authority and
capacity, the issue of Whitewater.
We remained what I believed to be called respectable as a special
investigator was selected. And he went forward and it was argued that
we should not interfere in the processes of his investigation.
But the Republican leader this afternoon, in my opinion, made it very
clear that our responsibility goes well beyond that of what a special
investigator would suggest. And I say that because of a concern that is
now seeping--and I use that word ``seeping''--from the mail and the
correspondence that I have received from the citizens of the State of
Idaho.
And that correspondence is bipartisan in nature, Mr. President. And
it does something like what I believe is critically important and why
we stand here this afternoon. It does not talk about Bill Clinton. It
does not talk about any of the allegations that might be out there. It
talks about the Presidency. It talks about the integrity of the Office
of the President of the United States and that it is being eroded every
day, as this controversy is allowed to remain the subject of public
speculation and the butt of late-night talk show jokes.
I hide nothing when I say that I have been opposed to this
President's policies on more than one occasion. But let me tell you, I
do deplore the damage that this matter is doing to him and to our
Nation's highest office.
Press conferences and spin control are not the same as a full and
fair inquiry. And the Senator from New York this afternoon has laid
before the Senate a resolution that would establish just that--a
balanced, if you will, bipartisan approach toward a full and fair
inquiry.
It does not enhance the President's reputation and authority either
personally or institutionally to leave legitimate questions unanswered.
Instead, it breeds disrespect. And we are now beginning to hear that.
No matter where we turn in this country, the citizens are beginning to
ask: When are you going to respond with the kind of oversight
responsibility that is clearly that of the U.S. Senate?
Most important, Mr. President, we all have a stake in honoring the
commitment of the Senate, which voted, as I mentioned, in March to
organize hearings on Whitewater.
We have heard from the leader today that both of our leaders have
been in a slow but what appears to be a progressive approach toward
resolving this issue and bringing before the Senate an approach to get
us to hearings.
The American people expect the Senate to act on that commitment. They
have heard too many empty promises issuing out of the Washington
beltway. Until we set a date, until we decide a forum, until we
establish a nonpartisan procedure for those hearings, we are not
honoring the commitment that we have made to ourselves, to our
Constitution, but more importantly to the people of this country.
We voted bipartisanly 98 to 0 to move ahead months ago. The American
people are now asking us to do so.
I felt it was incumbent on my part today to begin to speak out on
this issue, as I have chosen not to do before. And I will tell you
that, following the Memorial Day recess, I will come back to this
floor, as many of my colleagues will, day after day to ask of our
leadership and to ask of this Senate that in a respectable, a
bipartisan, a responsible and a constitutional way we proceed with the
business of the people in a fair and open forum to ensure the integrity
of the Office of the Presidency of the United States of America.
Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I understand that my name was mentioned, and
my hometown was mentioned a moment ago by the minority leader of the
Senate, that he was visiting Kentucky last week and that he visited my
hometown. He said that he was in Senator Ford's hometown last week and
they were all asking him about Whitewater.
Mr. President, we talked about the message that was sent from that
race.
Mr. D'AMATO. May I make an inquiry to the distinguished senior
Senator from Kentucky--or just an observation for 10 seconds?
Senator, I do not believe that the Republican leader mentioned your
name. I heard it--I think----
Mr. FORD. What about my hometown, then?
Mr. D'AMATO. That may have been. I just wanted you to have the facts.
Mr. FORD. I got the facts--I got enough of them. I am getting fed up
with them. I have the floor.
Mr. D'AMATO. I guess you----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has the floor.
Mr. FORD. I have the floor and I am going to keep it for awhile.
Mr. D'AMATO. Good.
Mr. FORD. You can do what you want to.
But they talked about the questions that were being asked in my
hometown. That is fine.
You be there 15 minutes, you know more about my hometown than I do
and I have lived there for 70 years. I do not see anybody lining up in
my front yard or at my office, asking and begging for Whitewater
committees to come up here and investigate.
They talk about the campaign in the Second Congressional District
yesterday. I will tell you what it was. It was distortion. It was
distraction. And it was an avalanche of money. Even the Republican
Senatorial Campaign Committee put $10,000 in a congressional race.
Now, is that what you have been out raising money for? To elect a
Congressman? I thought you were going to have the Senate, get a
majority in the Senate. We got money from all over the country. Every
Congressman who had a campaign fund sent $1,000. Hundreds of thousands
of dollars poured in there in a couple of weeks. So it was not a
question about, as Speaker Tip O'Neil would say, ``All politics is
local.'' This in my opinion was far from a local election. When it came
in there, you talked about guns, gays--that was part of it--guns, gays,
and term limits. Wanted you to sign an affidavit--all these things to
tie your hands for months and years to come.
Then talk about crime--did not talk about crime at all. That is on
the minds of my constituents. I do not know what is on the minds of
yours.
They did not talk about health care, except this fellow is going to
vote against it all. That is the only part of health care they made any
statement about. Did not talk about welfare reform--that was not in the
conversation. But when they say my hometown, and he is there for 15
minutes and knows more about it than I do after 70 years, I have to
come and take exception to that.
If you do not take my name, did not use my name--I understand he
did--but if that is not true, he still used my hometown.
So I just want my colleagues to know that that was not the message.
That was not the message. There will be another race in November. And I
do not believe you are going to put $400,000 into that congressional
race again. Lightning does not strike in the same place twice normally.
But it may.
But I want to tell you, my phone is ringing off the wall. People are
upset. We have lost a seat held for 129 years by Democrats. Only in
1865 did we have something other than a Democrat elected and that was a
Conservative.
I understand what is going on. I understand the phone calls
representing a candidate when you were not representing that candidate,
you were representing another one. I can see all the handbills, and one
of these days we are going to put the handbills out here and let you
look at them and see how you like what was done in the Second
Congressional District. I want you to look at the ads and how you
defamed a man and his character. That was part of the campaign. There
were no issues relevant to the Second Congressional District. It was
just distortion, distraction, and a rush of money.
I think I know my constituency, and particularly my hometown. I want
to tell you, when I go back home I am going to say what they said here.
When you have 100 people at the airport, and in 15 minutes you know
more about it than I do, then something is wrong. I just do not believe
that what was said here on the floor earlier was correct.
Mr. DOLE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. FORD. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. DOLE. I just wanted to straighten the Senator out.
Mr. FORD. That will be fine.
Mr. DOLE. I did not mention either your name or your hometown. I said
I was in the district--I think it is a free country.
Mr. FORD. Yes, I understand that. What towns did you visit? Did you
tell them what towns you visited?
Mr. DOLE. I did not mention that in my statement on the floor, so I
did not mention your hometown.
Mr. FORD. Have you mentioned it earlier today?
Mr. DOLE. Not that I know of, not on the floor.
Mr. FORD. Have not mentioned it at all? Then my information is wrong
and I apologize to the Senator.
Mr. DOLE. The only time I mentioned it was just recently, in the last
10 minutes.
Mr. FORD. What did the Senator reference to then?
Mr. DOLE. I said the election in Kentucky where Republicans won a
seat they haven't held since the Civil War, or 100-and----
Mr. FORD. Since 1865.
Mr. DOLE. ``It's time for a''----
Mr. FORD. See, I know about the district, Senator.
Mr. DOLE. ``It's time for a change.''
Mr. FORD. I am not sure.
Mr. DOLE. I would not do that, as I told the Senator before. I did
not go down there to campaign against him. Never mentioned your name
while I was there. If I did, it would have been mentioned favorably.
But I did not, in the debate today, mention either the Senator by name,
or his hometown--or even the Second Congressional District.
Mr. FORD. Well, I apologize to the Senator. I took that--I want the
Record to reflect that you did not mention my hometown, you did not
mention my name, and you have not done so in any press conference or
anything today----
Mr. DOLE. I have not had any press conferences.
Mr. FORD. To the press? You have not mentioned my name to the press,
and my hometown?
Mr. DOLE. No.
Mr. FORD. I said--I was told you had been in Senator Ford's hometown
and mentioned Whitewater.
Mr. DOLE. I said when I was down there in that district I talked
about Whitewater. I did not say they were lining up, but said they
asked about it. I know the Senator's hometown because he was gracious
enough to meet me there in 1987.
Mr. FORD. No, see--it was Lexington.
Mr. DOLE. What is your hometown?
Mr. FORD. Owensboro. But not during the campaign.
Mr. DOLE. Then I was not in your hometown.
I did not know where you were from.
Mr. FORD. Could we have order in the gallery? This is not a funny
thing, when we talk about hometowns.
I did meet the Senator. It was in Lexington, when you were running
for President. I have not met you any other time.
Mr. DOLE. Well, whatever. I appreciate your meeting me wherever it
was.
Mr. FORD. You needed all the help you could get at the time.
Mr. DOLE. I needed more than I could get at the time, as I recall.
But the point is, I want the Senator to know that I know the rules
and I would not come to the Senate floor and disparage in any way or
make any comments that might in any way reflect upon any of my
colleagues on either side, even by mentioning where they might be from.
Because I am very proud of where I am from. You are very proud of where
you are from. And that is sort of the way the Record should read.
Mr. FORD. All right, that is fine.
Then we talk about the message that was sent from the Second
Congressional District in Kentucky. That, the message was not sent in a
manner of which I think we all want the message to be couched. The
message was a distortion, distraction and rush of money.
As I said, the Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Republican
Senatorial Campaign Committee put $10,000 into that congressional race.
I do not see anybody rushing from most senatorial campaigns to put it
into a congressional race. And that, Mr. President, I think, was one of
the items, the rush of money was--the stealth approach that was
reported in our papers in Kentucky today. Sure it was. And I understand
it. And I understand what happened there. I have no illusions. I know
the polls. I have seen the polls of the district and I know why you
went in there. But the day is not over and there will be another race
in that district.
Mr. DOLE. There will be races----
Mr. FORD. I hope you will come back and I hope you will bring several
hundred thousand dollars again. We need it. We like it. And when you
fly in by corporate jet and we try to get along in a bunny jumper--
maybe we will catch up with you one of these days. We are going to try.
Mr. McCONNELL. Will my friend yield?
Mr. FORD. Sure, I will be glad to yield. I was informed--one thing--I
take my friend's word for it. But just to say they were asking you
about Whitewater, I travel that district almost every weekend and they
are not beating down my door about Whitewater. I will assure you of
that.
Mr. McCONNELL. I just wanted to reassure my colleague from Kentucky I
was on the floor when the Senate Republican leader spoke. He neither
mentioned your name, nor your hometown. There was discussion by both
the Republican leader and myself about the meaning of the race in the
Second District yesterday.
Mr. FORD. May I say to my colleague that somewhere, somehow, my name
was mentioned and my hometown was mentioned.
Mr. McCONNELL. Not on the floor.
Mr. FORD. But it has been mentioned, or that is the information I got
from the individual, that is, in my opinion, honest as he can be. So
whether it was said on the floor or not, my name has been mentioned
today and my hometown has been mentioned.
Mr. DOLE. Will the Senator yield to me?
Mr. FORD. I will be glad to.
Mr. DOLE. I want to put in the Record, the only statement I made I
made last night when we went out last night about the ``GOP Winning
Streak, the Republicans 9-for-9 In Big Elections with Lewis Win in
Kentucky, Winning Streak Sends Powerful Message to White House.''
I ask unanimous consent that the entire statement be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
GOP WINNING STREAK
REPUBLICANS 9-FOR-9 IN BIG ELECTIONS WITH LEWIS WIN IN KENTUCKY:
WINNING STREAK SENDS POWERFUL MESSAGE TO WHITE HOUSE
Washington.--Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole tonight
issued the following statement regarding Ron Lewis's election
to the U.S. House of Representatives in Kentucky's special
election:
``The tidal wave of Republican victories continues. With
Ron Lewis breaking the 129-year Democrat lock on the U.S.
House seat in Kentucky's 2nd district, the Republican party
has won all nine of the most important elections since
President Clinton took the White House.
``No doubt about it, this election sends a powerful message
to the White House: on issue after issue, the American people
aren't swallowing this Administration's big government
medicine.''
Mr. DOLE. Again, in that statement, I do not mention any name.
Mr. FORD. Senator, I am going back and check it through again and
find out where the information came from, because if you did not say
that, then it has made me look a little silly. But still the question
in the Second Congressional District was not on Clinton. The distortion
and the distraction and the dollars, that is what happened in the
Second Congressional District.
Mr. DOLE. If the Senator will yield, that may have been true
somewhere, but it was not true where I stopped. We did talk to people.
We were about an hour at each stop. We had a chance to meet with
people. I generally try to listen to people. I got a lot of messages,
for Congress as well. As I said--we can go back and read the Record--I
said the message to Congress as well as the President. So that includes
us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Ford.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I will be glad to yield to my colleague for
a question, not a statement.
Mr. McCONNELL. I do not have a question. At the appropriate time, I
want to make an observation just about the dollar issue, I will say to
my colleague from Kentucky. As he knows, the dollars spent relatively
even in the race. I will just wait until he finishes.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, relatively even, but an individual can spend
his own personal money.
Mr. McCONNELL. Yes.
Mr. FORD. About $50,000. That does not compare to several hundred
thousand that was put in by outside sources. $58,600 by--I am not sure
if it was Republican National Committee or the House Republican CCC,
but that was one purchase that was made at one time.
Mr. McCONNELL. My colleague, I am sure knows, the spending in the
race was relatively even, the big difference being the candidate of the
Democratic Party basically chose to finance a good portion of it out of
his own pocket. The Republican candidate was a man of modest means who
simply was unable to do that and unwilling to go into debt. So the
amount of money spent in the race was relatively even. It was not
determined because either candidate dramatically outspent the other.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I retain the floor. The question here is not
the amount of money but where the money came from and how the money was
spent. The preacher that won the race is a nice fellow, but he is
foreign to what went on in the last 2 weeks of his campaign. It is
foreign to him as an individual. People moved in and took over, and he
became the pawn rather than the candidate. All of the phone calls,
phone banks, all the distortions and distractions and the money. Never
were there the local issues, what are of interest to the district.
So I want to be sure the three things that you remember about that
race: Distortion, distraction and rush of money. That is exactly what
happened in that. Whitewater was never brought up in the campaign. I do
not remember Whitewater ever being mentioned in the campaign, and if it
is so important, it is on everybody's mind, I do not see why somebody
did not say something about Whitewater, that it was an issue; that we
were not having hearings. I never heard anything about it. Even in the
Republican campaign. They had plenty of money. They bought everything
they could buy.
But there never was any part of an issue, never a statement ever
made, to my knowledge, or in the paper that they were down there
demanding that we have a Whitewater hearing up here. They would prefer
us to get around to crime, to health care, to welfare reform and those
sort of things that are important to the citizens of my home district.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, one of the statewide newspapers in
Kentucky has adopted a practice recommended by David Broder of the
Washington Post several years ago, which is to critique television
commercials run in campaigns. I think it is interesting to note that in
assessing the commercials of the candidates in the Second District in
Kentucky, the commercials of the winning candidate, Congressman-elect
Lewis, were basically not criticized for being inaccurate. It was the
most positive assessment of political ads that I have seen in recent
years.
So I think it is not correct to say there was a campaign of
distortion in any way. An objective observer of the campaign
commercials, the Louisville Courier Journal--a liberal Democratic paper
which criticizes everybody's commercials, looks at them very
carefully--did not conclude that the commercials that were being run by
the Republican candidate were in any way deceitful or distorting.
In fact, what was the issue in the Second District was the Clinton
administration. That is not unfair. He is the President of the United
States. Voters are looking around for some way to express themselves.
We found that in the Second Congressional District, 30 percent of the
voters thought the President ought to be reelected and 55 percent
thought anybody else would be a better choice.
So in what way could anybody reasonably conclude that it was unfair
of the Republican candidate to make President Clinton an issue? The
message in Kentucky was clear. We had a candidate who was adequately
funded, thanks to support of his political party, which is why we have
political parties, to try to help candidates of our persuasion. We had
a candidate who was adequately supported by Republicans all over the
country, here, in the House and elsewhere who wanted to help someone
they thought deserved a chance to win, running against a very nice man
who financed a large portion of the race out of his own pocket.
Some of us just do not have that kind of money, do not have that kind
of option. So in looking at the Second District, Mr. President, let me
just say, in conclusion, money did not turn this race. Both sides were
adequately funded: One candidate funded it out of his own pocket and
one candidate got it from a whole lot of folks.
No. 2, there clearly was only one issue in the Second District, and
that was the President and his standing. That may change, but as of
yesterday in the Second District in Kentucky, I think it is safe to say
President Clinton could not get elected dogcatcher.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
____________________