[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.

                          ____________________