[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]

 
                               WHITEWATER

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to take the discussion this 
afternoon back to the resolution introduced this afternoon by the 
distinguished Senator from New York. I joined in that resolution. I 
commend the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato], for taking this action 
this afternoon and for causing this discussion that, frankly, is in my 
opinion overdue; for his diligence in pursuing this matter and for the 
way the resolution is drafted. This resolution does not say by 6 a.m. 
on June 7 we must begin. It says, though, that there must be some 
reasonable expectation that we move forward in this regard.
  So I have really appreciated the way Senator D'Amato has handled this 
matter. I have every confidence we are going to go forward with 
hearings. He is going to do an excellent job as the ranking Republican 
on the Banking Committee in this effort.
  I really believe our Founding Fathers thought the Senate was the 
suitable body of inquiry that should look into whether public people 
might have violated the public trust. The Senate, fulfilling the 
founders' vision, and its constitutional duty that has been referred to 
by several Senators this afternoon including the distinguished majority 
leader, should hold hearings on the so-called Whitewater affair. There 
is no question about it. We must know when we are going to do that. And 
we must know what happened and where the various documents are. There 
are so many unanswered questions that we must get into.
  So that is why I am supporting this resolution. But before I get into 
some of the comments I prepared, I would like to ask the Senator from 
New York to respond to some of my questions. Frankly, after listening 
to the majority leader, and I listened very closely for most of the 
time, I still do not know what the answer is. He said we are going to 
have hearings but it is unclear to me when that might happen.
  We have been very patient. We waited for months. There has been this 
allegation that Special Counsel Fiske is going forward, but as I 
understand it he was going to go forward basically in two parts. This 
was going to be a bifurcated process, report on that, and then go 
forward. Would the Senator from New York clarify that for me? I thought 
his preliminary investigation that we agreed to wait on, you agreed to 
wait until he completed this investigation, should have already been 
over or was about to be over.
  Exactly what is the status of his investigations and when could we 
expect to get that report?
  Mr. D'AMATO. The Senator raises a very important point.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield to the Senator from New York to respond to the 
question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Thank you, Mr. President.
  My colleague raises a very interesting point. This resolution is 
intended to adopt a process where the cochairmen of the special 
subcommittee can consult with the special prosecutor--not in a so-
called rump session--but in an official manner which cannot be 
questioned to ascertain what progress he has made and the status of the 
investigation.
  To be quite candid, our staff contacted the staff of the special 
prosecutor. They were initially going to meet. But there were concerns 
that all of the interests of the Congress or the Senate particularly, 
should be fairly represented. I understood that. I did not go forward.
  But the fact of the matter is, the special counsel, in whom I have 
utmost confidence, indicated the initial phase as it related to 
contacts between the Treasury and the White House--meetings, by the 
way, which we would not have learned of if we had not had hearings--and 
the question of their appropriateness may or may not fall within his 
responsibility because there may not have been criminal activity. But 
that certainly does not mean that we do not have a right to know about 
that activity. The American people certainly have a right to know.
  Mr. Fiske indicated the initial phase would take a matter of weeks--3 
weeks, 4 weeks, 5 weeks--we suggested 6 weeks, 8 weeks--more.
  Mr. LOTT. How long has it been?
  Mr. D'AMATO. It has been quite a bit more. It has been more than 2 
months and when we come back it will be closer to 3 months and we have 
not even begun the process of establishing the mechanism and the 
vehicle by which we would be working, to ascertain what the facts are 
and to work in a manner which would not impede or impair his 
investigation. I suggest if we continue this way we are never going to 
get a date, we are never going to start hearings, and we will never 
have a forum. And that is what is taking place here. So it is one thing 
to say this is partisanship and another thing to look at this in a 
manner in which we have been most restrained.
  It is now close to 10 weeks. Now we are talking about the special 
counsel indicating he thought it was a matter of 3 or 4 weeks. We 
know--and that is when Senator Cohen and I met and that is when we 
established almost immediately the fundamental situation that we would 
not grant immunity--just would not, without his concurrence. That takes 
care of the one very outstanding issue, a legitimate issue. We are 
willing to waive that. We did that. The Republican leader indicated 
that in his statements.
  I see no impairment but I see an impairment if we do not begin the 
process. We have not even begun the process by which we could 
legitimately ascertain when we can go forward.
  Mr. LOTT. The Senator has no doubt the hearings can begin, go 
forward, without impeding the separate investigation by the special 
counsel? You have indicated we would not intend to grant immunity to 
witnesses. Clearly you can go forward without doing that. That was the 
only point that was raised by the majority leader, concern about going 
forward, that I heard. Without granting immunity, what is the problem?
  Mr. D'AMATO. I do not see any, particularly, since it would be, I 
believe, the intent of the committee, once it was formed, to consult. 
Not to abdicate our congressional responsibility. And understand we are 
coming pretty close to people talking about that, or it being suggested 
that is an approach that is a total abdication of congressional 
oversight and our responsibility.
  Let us understand that. We have gone, I think--let us put it out 
where it is, if it is partisan politics--the Republican Members of the 
Senate in saying, No. 1, we have just about given up and said we will 
not grant immunity. That is a right the Congress has, to grant 
immunity. We have conceded that.
  Second, we would be consulting with special counsel, as it relates to 
whether or not we would be impairing any part of the investigation; 
that we would actually tell him the witnesses that we were going to be 
calling; that we would give him the opportunity to call witnesses 
first, which he wanted.
  So we have conceded that, but now we cannot even get the vehicle up 
and beginning to operate. I will tell you at this rate, you will not 
have any hearings until this session is over. And if that is the 
intent--because that is what is taking place--the practical side is the 
manner in which we are proceeding, the pace, will mean that there will 
be no hearings during this congressional session and, indeed, this is a 
rather unique way of saying, ``Oh, yes, we want hearings,'' but then 
constructing hurdles that are impossible to overcome, and these are not 
realistic hurdles that are guaranteed to ensure fairness and to see 
that there is no impediment placed in the way unnecessarily of the 
special prosecutor.
  Indeed, he is being used as a convenient foil to keep the Congress 
from doing that which it should in an appropriate manner.
  Mr. LOTT. I certainly agree with that. If the Senator will yield me 
back my time, because I would like to yield to the Senator from Georgia 
who would like to get into the discussion, maybe asking questions of 
the Senator from New York, if he will remain on his feet.
  I yield to the Senator from Georgia for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank my good colleague from 
Mississippi for letting me intervene to pose questions to the Senator 
from New York.
  I would like to, if I could, follow this line of distinction that the 
majority leader and others have alluded to with regard to the 
separation between the special prosecutor's responsibilities and the 
Congress, and whether or not we are intervening appropriately or not.
  I understand the assertion that all of this is related to partisan 
politics, but of just recent days, I have come upon this article. I 
have not seen it in the American press, but this issue is ravaging 
Europe, which I think ought to be of concern to us.
  The Economist on May 7, which is like U.S. News & World Report, has a 
section called ``The American Survey.'' It is called: ``The Lasater 
Affair: Ghosts of a Carelessness Past.'' It says in the lead:

       The Whitewater property deals were not the only--

  Not the only

       --questionable transactions going on in Arkansas when Bill 
     Clinton was Governor. The activities of one of his chief 
     campaign contributors may come back to haunt him, too.

  If you will bear with me just a moment. It goes on to say in the last 
paragraph, Mr. President:

       The activities of Lasater & Co. and of the Arkansas 
     Development Finance Authority are only now coming into the 
     spotlight. It is clear that the money trail involving them 
     has never--

  Never

       --been thoroughly investigated and that many unanswered 
     questions remain.

  I will conclude that the author of this article is a European, not a 
Republican or a Democrat. This is a major publication in Europe, not a 
part of this grand institution of the U.S. Senate.
  This is demeaning of the Presidency of the United States and of the 
authority to govern the Free world. I think a major question for all 
Americans is: Are we being savaged by the European press or are, 
indeed, these questions unanswered?
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From The Economist, May 7, 1994]

            The Lasater Affair--Ghosts of Carelessness Past

       The Whitewater property deals were not the only 
     questionable transactions going on in Arkansas when Bill 
     Clinton was governor. The activities of one of his chief 
     campaign contributors may come back to haunt him, too.
       The penny dropped for Dennis Patrick in February, when he 
     heard the names Dan Lasater and Patsy Thomasson mentioned on 
     a radio show about Whitewater. They provided one possible 
     explanation of why his life had turned into a living hell 
     since a brokerage account had been opened at Lasater & Co in 
     1985 in the name of his company, Patrick & Associates.
       The tale is a strange one, and it is only one man's story 
     of what happened to him. In July 1985 Mr. Patrick, then 
     living in the mountains of eastern Kentucky, was telephoned 
     by a former college friend, Steve Love, to invite him on an 
     all-expenses-paid deep-sea fishing trip to Florida. Mr. 
     Patrick, a clerk at the Whitley county circuit court, 
     accepted. During the weekend his friend urged him to open a 
     brokerage account at Lasater & Co, a Little Rock bond-dealer, 
     where Mr. Love worked as a vice-president. He promised Mr. 
     Patrick, who at the time had an estimated net worth of at 
     most $60,000 and no knowledge of securities investment, that 
     he would not lose a cent.
       Mr. Patrick says Mr. Love telephoned him the next month to 
     say he had opened an account on his behalf (although Mr. 
     Patrick had signed nothing and put up no money) and that he 
     had already made him a profit of about $20,000. A delighted 
     Mr. Patrick went to the offices of Lasater & Co in Little 
     Rock, where he says he was reassured by Mr. Love and Billy 
     McCord, the sales manager, that there was no risk of loss and 
     that he could expect to make up to $20,000 a week. He was 
     instructed by Mr. Love to deposit his profits at the First 
     American Bank in Little Rock. It was only several weeks 
     later, after Mr. Love had pressed Mr. Patrick to start 
     signing documents even though his signature had never been 
     needed before, that Mr. Patrick grew uneasy enough to ask Mr. 
     Love to stop trading on his behalf.
       A few months later, Mr. Love met Mr. Patrick in Kentucky 
     and handed him a folder containing trading records, in the 
     name of Patrick & Associates, which Mr. Patrick did not 
     understand. Then in April 1986 Lasater & Co. filed a lawsuit 
     against Mr. Patrick seeking payment of a sum of $86,625. Mr. 
     Patrick, upset, telephoned Mr. Love, who told him he would 
     take care of the matter. But the litigation continued. In 
     June 1987, Mr. Patrick filed answers to interrogatories 
     raised by Lasater & Co. in the lawsuit. He says he was helped 
     by Linda Nesheim, a former broker at Lasater & Co. The 
     Economist failed to find Mr. Love and Miss Nesheim for their 
     version of these events.
       Mr. Patrick stated in his interrogatory, under penalty of 
     perjury, that Mr. Love had opened an account without his 
     permission or knowledge, and that trades in his account had 
     from time to time exceeded $12m. Mr. Patrick also supplied a 
     list of names of people who knew about this matter, including 
     Mr. Love and Mr. McCord. He says that Miss Nesheim told him 
     that when Miss Thomasson--a long-time associate of Mr. 
     Lasater who at the time had legal responsibility for running 
     his affairs--saw these names she would be most upset and that 
     he would hear nothing more from Lasater & Co. And that is 
     what happened.
       But Mr. Patrick had other distractions. Within one year 
     four men were arrested by agents of the Treasury Department's 
     Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) division on charges 
     relating to plots to kill him.
       First, Patrick Tully was arrested in Alabama armed with a 
     gun and carrying a map of the inside of Mr. Patrick's house 
     and a picture of his vehicle. Second, Danny Star Burson was 
     arrested in Tennessee for machine-gun violations after Mr. 
     Patrick had pursued him down an interstate highway after what 
     he alleges was an attempt to kill him. Third, Jame Josey and 
     Anthony Tricomi were arrested in Texas in September 1986 by 
     the ATF for conspiracy to transport explosives across state 
     lines. A federal indictment at the time said Mr. Josey had 
     hired Mr. Tricomi to kill Mr. Patrick.
       Mr. Patrick says he had no idea why these people were 
     trying to kill him. But ATF agents in Kentucky thought he was 
     mixed up in drug trafficking. They even offered him immunity 
     from prosecution if he would talk. Mr. Patrick said he had no 
     information to give. One ATF agent assigned to his case, John 
     Simms, now says Mr. Patrick was considered ``a victim only''. 
     Mr. Patrick moved away from Kentucky in 1988, and still lives 
     in semi-hiding.
       Since moving, he has suffered no more attempts on his life. 
     But when he heard the familiar names of Mr. Lasater and Miss 
     Thomasson on the radio, he searched out his old broking 
     account records and showed them to a bond-broker friend. The 
     friend told him that the bond trades in his account had 
     amounted to about $50m.


                          developing arkansas

       In Little Rock in the 1980s, Dan Lasater was renowned for 
     his extravagant parties and hard living. After a childhood of 
     poverty, he made his fortune in his 20s when he founded 
     Ponderosa, a steakhouse chain that went public in 1971. He 
     had close ties with Bill Clinton, who was then governor, 
     through his friendship with Mr. Clinton's mother and brother. 
     At one stage, Mr. Clinton's half-brother Roger was Mr. 
     Lasater's driver. When Roger was in trouble with the law over 
     drugs, Mr. Lasater sent him to his Florida horse-farm to lie 
     low for a while. According to the farm manager, John Fernung, 
     Mr. Lasater remarked at that point that he owed the governor 
     a lot of favours.
       Although his family came from Arkansas, Mr. Lasater was 
     born in Indiana. He moved to Little Rock in the 1970s to go 
     into the broking business, and set up Lasater & Co. in 1983 
     after buying out his partners, George Locke and David 
     Collins. He was one of the biggest contributors to Mr. 
     Clinton's election campaign in 1982, when he won back the 
     governorship after a term out of office. The firm soon became 
     a frequent underwriter of Arkansas municipal-bond issues, 
     including those of the Arkansas Development Finance Authority 
     (ADFA).
       Roy Drew, a financial adviser based in Little Rock who has 
     studied the ADFA, says the agency--which was set up at Mr. 
     Clinton's urging by the Arkansas legislature in 1985--took 
     over much of the state's bond-issuing power and gave the 
     governor the ability ``essentially to create money''. ADFA 
     has no regulator and no legislative oversight. The governor 
     appoints the board and has the right to approve or disapprove 
     every bond issue. There is virtually no limit on the value of 
     bonds that can be issued, an arrangement that Mr. Drew 
     describes as a ``prescription for abuse''.
       A book published in March alleges that ADFA was also used 
     as a conduit to slip cash for the manufacture of untraceable 
     weapons parts. These were sent (in violation of American law) 
     to the contras in Nicaragua during the Reagan years. The 
     book--``Compromised: Reagan, Bush and the CIA''--was written 
     by Terry Reed, a former air force intelligence officer in 
     Vietnam, and John Cummings, an investigative reporter. Mr. 
     Reed himself says he trained Nicaraguans to drop supplies. 
     The laundered money, he claims, was literally dropped into 
     Arkansas by aircraft as part of a successful smuggling 
     operation based in Mena, in western Arkansas. The operation 
     was run by Barry Seal, a man who Mr. Reed reckons was working 
     as a freelance agent for the CIA.
       Mr. Reed alleges that Seal made cash deposits directly into 
     Lasater & Co. in Little Rock, and that Mr. Lasater introduced 
     Seal to him as a client of his. Seal, a self-confessed drug-
     smuggler, was shot dead in February 1986 before he was due to 
     give testimony against the Medellin cartel. Mr. Lasater could 
     not be reached for comment, but George Locke, his former 
     brokerage partner, says, ``I can tell you one thing, Mr. Seal 
     has never met Mr. Lasater.''
       Others, too, think there was something odd happening at 
     Mena. In October 1988 Charles Black, the deputy prosecutor 
     for Polk County (where Mena is), handed Governor Clinton a 
     letter appealing for state financing of an investigation into 
     drug-smuggling at the airport. At that point, according to 
     the letter, the investigative file on Mena contained around 
     20,000 pages. It was, he says, ``the biggest criminal case I 
     ever came across.'' Mr. Black says that Mr. Clinton agreed to 
     get someone to look into it, but he never heard anything 
     more.
       Bill Duncan, now the chief investigator at the Medicare 
     fraud division of the Arkansas attorney-general's office, 
     carried out a criminal investigation of goings-on at Mena 
     between 1983 and 1986 for the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. 
     Duncan says he uncovered evidence of a ``tremendous amount of 
     money-laundering''. His own investigation focused on how the 
     flow of arms was financing drug-sale proceeds washed clean 
     through what appeared to be legitimate businesses. His 
     findings were never submitted to a grand jury, and he was not 
     granted subpoenas to pursue the money trail in central 
     Arkansas, which includes Little Rock.
       Mr. Reed says that the first recipient of a tax-free low-
     interest ADFA bond issue was Park-On-Meter, a parking-meter 
     company based in Russellville, Arkansas. Seth Ward, the 
     company's president and one of its owners, is the brother-in-
     law of Webb Hubbell, a former law partner of Hillary Clinton 
     who recently resigned from a high position in the Justice 
     Department during investigations of overcharging of clients 
     at their law firm. In his book, Mr. Reed claims Park-On-Meter 
     made weapons parts as a subcontractor for Iver Johnson's 
     Firearms (now bankrupt), of Jacksonville, Arkansas. It was 
     this company which, by Mr. Reed's account, was the primary 
     contractor for building the untraceable weapons components.


                           the s&l connection

       One motive for setting up ADFA, according to Roy Drew, was 
     to reduce the sway held by Stephens Inc of Little Rock over 
     the Arkansas municipal-bond underwriting market. Stephens is 
     one of America's biggest non-New-York based investment banks; 
     it is often said to ``own'' the state of Arkansas. Lasater & 
     Co was one of the competitors that benefited most from ADFA's 
     creation. According to the Washington Times, the firm 
     underwrote $664m in Arkansas municipal-bond issues, not all 
     of them ADFA's, before Mr. Clinton was compelled to distance 
     himself from Mr. Lasater when his friend fell foul of a drug 
     charge.
       Mr. Drew, himself a Stephens employee for six years, says 
     that Stephens had become ``real nervous'' at the amount of 
     business Lasater & Co was receiving. But Stephens did not 
     have to worry for long. Mr. Lasater, who was by then a heavy 
     cocaine-user, was charged with ``social distribution'' of 
     drugs and sentenced to 2\1/2\ years in prison. He served six 
     months, and in 1990 Mr. Clinton pardoned him.
       Mr. Lasater's links with the president have continued, 
     albeit indirectly, up to now. Miss Thomasson, who did not 
     return The Economist's calls about this story, now serves as 
     director of administration in the White House. She worked for 
     Lasater & Co with the title of executive president and was 
     given legal responsibility for managing Mr. Lasater's affairs 
     after he went to prison in 1987. Miss Thomasson was also one 
     of the two aides who accompanied Bernard Nussbaum, the former 
     White House counsel, on a search of Vincent Foster's office 
     on July 20th last year less than three hours after his body 
     was found in a Virginia park.
       Mr. Lasater is now back in Little Rock and still active in 
     business. His Phoenix Group has been bidding for distressed 
     assets sold by the Resolution Trust Corporation, the federal 
     agency charged with cleaning up the savings-and-loan mess. 
     There is irony in this, since frenzied bond trading by 
     Lasater & Co played a part in the failure of more than one 
     savings and loan.
       For example, the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance 
     Corporation (FSLIC), the former thrift deposit insurance 
     fund, sued Lasater & Co for $33.3m for its part in the 
     failure of First American Savings and Loan, a Chicago-based 
     thrift, Lasater & Co paid the government $200,000 in an out-
     of-court settlement. Bizarrely in view of Mr. Lasater's 
     connections, FLSIC hired the Rose Law Firm of Little Rock to 
     represent it in the lawsuit. Even more extraordinary, given 
     Mr. Laster's ties to Mr. Clinton, the two top lawyers 
     assigned to the case were Mr. Foster and Mrs. Clinton.
       The activities of Lasater & Co and of ADFA are only now 
     coming into the spot-light. It is clear that the money trail 
     involving them has never been thoroughly investigated and 
     that many unanswered questions remain. At least they suggest 
     Mr. Clinton was not over-punctilious about either the friends 
     he made or the institutions he backed. That carelessness, 
     combined with eagerness to please, continues to haunt him in 
     the White House.

  Mr. COVERDELL. And now the question to my good friend from New York: 
These new issues that are coming out almost on a weekly basis, do we 
know that these questions that are called unanswered are in the purview 
of the special prosecutor? In other words, does he have a rolling 
authority that moves to the next question to the next question to the 
next question, or is there a box that he is operating in, and that we 
must seize upon these issues coming from around the world? Where is the 
line of demarcation for the special prosecutor?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield for a response to the Senator from 
New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Senator Coverdell from Georgia raises a very interesting 
question. I will not go into detail, but having spoken to the special 
prosecutor, as it related to whether or not his authority covered an 
activity that has been very prominently reported on, he indicated to me 
that he did not believe it did.
  Having said that, how are we going to ascertain where our 
congressional responsibilities obviously exist and where his charge and 
his authority does not cover and the fact that we will be precluded 
from even undertaking examinations in these areas, areas that he will 
never look at or may never look at, but yet are within the purview of 
the Congress?
  Very interesting. The fact of the matter is, we will never be able to 
find out until we set up a committee and a methodology for determining 
the appropriateness of his inquiry--where he may start, where he may 
stop, and areas which he may not be covering which we should be looking 
into. Therefore, we are precluded, until he completes everything, 
should we not have the ability to make the kind of inquiry you just 
have.
  Mr. LOTT. Let me ask a final question of the Senator and then make a 
statement and then yield to others.
  What are the Senator's intentions then with regard to this 
resolution? I fear exactly what he just said, what would happen if we 
do not move forward in June, July, August or September, or by the end 
of the year when would these hearings ever begin? We have a 
responsibility and we need to carry them out in a responsible way, but 
also in a timely way.
  Is it the intention of the Senator from New York to call this 
resolution up when we return from the Memorial Day break in early June? 
I know the leaders are going to continue to negotiate. They have an 
obligation to do that and, hopefully, they will reach an agreement. But 
there also has to be some idea of what the timing is.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I say to my friend and colleague that it is my intent to 
push forward, using this resolution as the basis and methodology of 
going forward. I am not suggesting this is the only way, but it 
certainly is a bipartisan format, it guarantees fairness, it gives the 
ability and calls upon both the cochairmen of the committee to 
undertake their responsibilities, recognizing the special prosecutor's 
role, but that I would move forward for votes to proceed on this 
resolution if, when we return in June--and that will put us close to 3 
months since we voted 98 to 0 to take up the matter--in a way which 
reflects upon the proper responsibilities of this body.
  So I would press for votes, and I would use this vehicle on all 
legislation that moves through. It is my intent to say we are going to 
continue to vote until we finally set up the committee within a proper 
framework, as outlined before, to do its job.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could just make a brief statement now 
and yield to others, I do want to say again, I can see how this would 
go on without any clarification of when the hearings would begin for 
the rest of this year. I think that would be a very bad mistake.
  We can argue all day about whether or not the American people are 
interested in this, worried about it, concerned about it. But I guess 
it varies from State to State. Clearly, I have people who ask me 
exactly what is going on and when are you going to have hearings. In 
fact, this very afternoon on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, there was a 
group of parents and students from Nettleton, MS I had the Whitewater 
question raised by a parent:

       When are you going to do your job in the Congress? We can't 
     figure out what happened. We don't know if these allegations 
     are accurate or not, but are you all going to do your job, 
     have a hearing or not?

  Clearly, I am hearing that from my constituents, and I do not always 
raise the subject. So I do think we have a responsibility to move 
forward.
  There are questions about what happened with the Small Business 
Administration: Were pressures exerted on a gentleman named Mr. Hale in 
Arkansas? There are questions about the Resolution Trust Corporation 
RTC whether or not pressures were exerted on the RTC--not years ago--
last year. We have questions about the conduct of the Treasury 
Department and their relationship with the White House.
  These are all areas that we should clearly be looking into. They may 
not lead to implications of the President or the First Lady, but they 
may lead to some serious questions about the conduct of Federal 
officials and Federal agencies and Federal departments. We must get 
into these issues and clarify them.
  I agree with what some others said. I think by having the hearings, 
getting into it sooner than later, maybe they may vindicate the 
President rather than implicate him. So I agree, I would think he 
should want to go forward with this--have the hearings, see what is 
there, conclude it and move on.
  Some people say, ``Oh, well, we have other important issues.'' I 
agree, and we continue to meet and debate and vote on issues.
  Finally, at long last, we voted to go to conference on the crime bill 
just last week. My question is, what took so long? The Senate acted on 
a crime package last November or December, and yet we just went to 
conference last week on a very, very important issue.
  The same thing with health care. We have been talking about the need 
for health care reform. We all agree that there needs to be changes in 
the health care area. We have been talking about it for a year and 5 
months and yet not a single committee of Congress has reported out a 
health bill.
  So I mean the Democrats have control of the White House, the House, 
and the Senate. Why do they not move on these issues?
  Welfare reform was a big issue in the election in 1992. The American 
people think we need welfare reform, and yet nothing is happening. It 
is clear that nothing is going to happen this year. There is no 
intention of bringing up welfare reform this year. I think we should be 
focusing on that.
  My question is why not? That was a big issue in the campaign in 1992, 
and yet the President's proposal on welfare reform is very much in 
doubt right now.
  I really was interested in the majority leader's comments about this 
is politics, partisan politics, raw partisan politics.
  Well, Mr. President, I have been in the Congress for 22 years now; I 
have served in the House and in the Senate, and I have seen raw 
partisan politics time after time after time, in the 1970's, in the 
1980's, in the 1990's--partisan, blatant politics, hearings that were 
not called for but they went forward even when there were special 
prosecutors also acting.
  I cannot believe that there are allegations, because we say we should 
have hearings and see what happened, oh, all of a sudden it is raw 
politics. What about the last 12 years in situations very similar to 
this, probably in many cases not nearly as bad as this where there had 
been the demand ``we must have hearings.''
  I wonder, when you have one party that controls the White House, and 
the House of Representatives, and the Senate, did it ever occur to 
anybody that maybe it is partisan politics that is blocking a hearing? 
I fear, I fear that there really is no intention of having these 
hearings, none. Maybe.
  Maybe I will be proven wrong. I certainly hope so. But I see an awful 
lot of indication that there are delays.
  Why not just say we are going to have hearings; they are going to 
begin June 15, July 15. Just say it. That is all. So we know that they 
will go forward.
  No, there are all these allegations. Also, it is said time and time 
again, oh, well, Republicans called for the special counsel. Yes, but 
as I recall, so did the distinguished Senator from New York [Mr. 
Moynihan]. One Sunday morning I saw him call for a special prosecutor 
on one of the talk shows. He said, yes, they ought to have one. It 
seems to me that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley], as I 
recall, may be called for one and then is when it happened. Democrats 
called for this special counsel.

  This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. This is an issue of 
responsibility, of doing our job. There are serious allegations pending 
out there, some of which I will list in the Record with my comments 
today. They should be investigated:
  Were federally insured Madison deposits used to fund then Governor 
Bill Clinton's 1984 campaign or used for payment of Whitewater 
Development Corp.'s debts?
  If the Clintons did not put money into Whitewater, and the venture 
wasn't cash-flowing, would not the Clintons question the source of the 
funds--that is Madison Guaranty--being used for their benefit?
  What types of financial transactions did the President and the First 
Lady engage in?
  Did these transactions cause conflicts of interest?
  Whether justice has been obstructed by the destruction of documents 
and unauthorized meetings between regulators and their superiors?
  I commend the Senator from New York, and I urge him to move forward 
with these hearings.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is going to remind the Senators that 
we are in a period of morning business. Each Senator is allowed to 
speak for up to 10 minutes. The Chair is going to indicate that the 
Senators have no right without unanimous consent to yield the floor for 
anything other than a question.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I wish you a good day.
  I would like to refer to some concerns that have been raised in the 
Chamber relative to the necessity of Senate hearings on the matter that 
is pending, which is the resolution introduced by the distinguished 
Senator from New York and the Republican leader concerning the 
necessity of Whitewater hearings.
  I wonder if my friend from New York recalls back in 1973 and 1974 
when Senator Sam Ervin and Senator Howard Baker led their committee 
through months of hearings in a number of complex issues that have now 
come to be known as Watergate.
  I wonder if he recalls that the committee took testimony from those 
who were also targets of the special counsel, Archibald Cox. and later 
Leon Jaworski, who became special counsel after the President fired Mr. 
Cox. But unlike the recent ill-fated work of Mr. Walsh that we saw, the 
special counsel in Watergate succeeded in convicting numerous officials 
for substantive offenses. This was accomplished even though Congress 
was deeply involved in both Senate and House oversight and impeachment 
hearings.
  So I would assume that the Senator from New York would agree that 
there was a need for congressional action; that congressional action 
was initiated and occurred in an atmosphere where there was a special 
prosecutor, that would certainly seem to be a precedent that would be 
applicable in this case.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I think the Senator has well stated----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New York yield to answer 
a question, agree to answer a question?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may answer the question.
  Mr. D'AMATO. The question put forth is one in which the claim is that 
we should not even have hearings when there is a special counsel 
because Mr. Walsh's case was purportedly imperiled by Congress' 
activity. We could argue whether or not we needed the Iran-Contra 
hearings. But, there are some who claim that a greater public good was 
accomplished even though some convictions may not have been obtained.
  The fact is a greater good was accomplished though, as the Senator 
points out, as a result of the hearings that were conducted in that 
matter called Watergate.
  I think it is a well-directed point. We should not obfuscate the need 
for hearings by claiming that we may imperil some future prosecution.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend from New York. And I think it is 
important, Mr. President, because more recently in 1992 the Congress 
conducted investigations into a bank scandal, the BNL bank scandal, and 
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on which I served as 
cochairman worked for months to learn whether the CIA had misled the 
Justice Department prosecutors or withheld important information on the 
prosecution of BNL bank officials in Atlanta, GA.
  During that period, however, the very same period the House Banking 
Committee under Chairman Gonzalez was unrelenting in its zeal to hold 
hearings on BNL and became particularly excited over this issue during 
the height of what was the Presidential campaign. Excitement was so 
high, Mr. President, that a special counsel was appointed by Attorney 
General Barr to look into many of the same issues as we were 
investigating in the Intelligence Committee.
  So the point is that, indeed, there is a precedent for this. There is 
longstanding precedent. It is a continuing precedent. We did not stop 
our inquiry then because Judge Lacey was appointed special counsel. We 
did our thing. He did his thing. I do not recall anybody objecting, 
certainly not the majority leader, to this simultaneous activity during 
the 1992 Presidential campaign.
  So, Mr. President, if Republicans are being accused of politicking 
because we are asking, we are asking for a Whitewater oversight 
investigation, then our friends, the Democrats, really must blush when 
they look into the mirror of history.
  Go back a little further. Who called for those silly and costly 
hearings to look at, do you remember, the October Surprise?
  Well, I know few Republicans who wanted to look into that nonsense, 
but it was at a time when George Bush was riding very high in public 
opinion polls after our great victory against Iraq and there was an 
unrelenting drumbeat of demand for congressional hearings.
  And we go back to hearings into the so-called October Surprise, to 
see if the Ronald Reagan campaign urged the Iranians to delay the 
release of the Iranian hostages until after the 1980 election.
  (Mr. CONRAD assumed the chair.)
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. This drumbeat for hearings was 11 or 12 years after 
the allegation. So when we talk about the Whitewater events happening a 
few years ago, that it is not germane or that it happened when our 
Chief Executive Officer was Governor--``October Surprise'', 11 to 12 
years after the allegation. It was so unrelenting that we saw our 
Democratic friends on the Foreign Relations Committee finally agree and 
they authorized expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars on 
worthless hearings. There was no ``October Surprise'' nor was there any 
political surprise in the thrashing around because there was only one 
motivation to the hearing and that was to tweak the Republicans.
  Can Congress engage in oversight during an investigation by special 
counsel? The answer is, Mr. President, of course we can. We are 
certainly able to set our agenda, establish our timetable for hearings, 
to determine issues relating to the immunity for witnesses to decide 
whether to subpoena documents and control all other facets involved in 
oversight hearings. We can do all of this by conferring with the 
special counsel, as the Senator from New York has indicated and 
suggested time and time again.
  We can accommodate legitimate concerns of witnesses and others. We do 
not have to get tangled in the operations of a grand jury. As I saw 
firsthand when I was involved in the Intelligence Committee as vice 
chairman, a special counsel and an aggressive oversight committee can 
do their work simultaneously by being considerate of the special needs 
of each other. That is how we worked in the Intelligence Committee when 
we had a dual investigation. The special counsel as well as the 
committee investigated. We did it in the BNL investigation even when a 
criminal prosecution was pending in Atlanta.
  What we must not do, Mr. President, is to abdicate our constitutional 
responsibility. I am very proud to join the Senator from New York in 
his constant reminder to this body that, indeed, if we fail to accept 
this responsibility, we are doing just that--abdicating our 
constitutional responsibilities. Remember this is a Government of three 
equal branches. The Senate has shown its capacity time and time again 
to impartially conduct investigations in parallel with special counsel 
by the cases I have noted. The Senate is on record in support of 
hearings. Let those hearings begin, and let the public hear all the 
facts, the facts under oath associated with Whitewater, and then make 
their own judgments.
  The longer this matter is delayed, Mr. President, the greater the 
public doubt about the integrity of our executive branch.
  So, Mr. President, I am very pleased to cosponsor the resolution 
introduced by the Senator from New York and the Republican leader. It 
has been, as pointed out time and time again, 2 months since the Senate 
voted 98 to zero to authorize the majority and minority leaders to 
enter into a discussion on the framework for congressional hearings 
into the matters that are commonly referred to as Whitewater.
  Two months, Mr. President, and we still have not had any indication 
that such hearings are going to proceed. Here we are just about to go 
on recess alerting our colleagues one more time that we mean business 
on this. We are going to proceed, and in the only manner that is 
available to us by simply adding the resolution that has been 
introduced to virtually every bill to force a vote. And we will get a 
vote.
  Mr. President, why have we not begun these hearings? Why has no 
schedule been agreed on to hold these hearings? Everyone in this 
institution is aware that we are ultimately going to hold these 
hearings because this issue, Mr. President, is not going to disappear. 
It is in the country's best interest to have these hearings move, not 
to have them delayed. What is in the best interests of this country and 
the best interests of the President is to have the issue associated 
with Whitewater aired in a public forum and resolved as quickly as 
possible. Delaying these hearings does not help the President one bit. 
Instead, it merely serves to extend and prolong the public's doubt and 
the credibility of the executive office.
  Mr. President, there are a lot of answers we want to address in 
association with Whitewater and a few of them specifically. I know my 
friend from New York would agree that this is but a few of a long list.
  Number one, were federally-insured deposits at Madison Guaranty 
Savings diverted to Governor Clinton's 1984 campaign?
  Two, were federally-insured Madison deposits diverted to pay the 
Clinton's share of their Whitewater debts?
  Three, after Madison became insolvent did favoritism, conflict of 
interest, and a false financial audit presented to State regulators by 
the Rose law firm permit Madison to remain open?
  Four, did Governor Clinton apply pressure to encourage the SBA to 
grant a loan that was not permitted to be made by the SBA?
  Mr. President, these are just a few of the questions that are 
unanswered. The public is entitled to those answers. And it is an 
obligation of the Senate to get them. Had we had hearings on this 
matter at the beginning of the year, all of these questions would have 
been behind us. Whitewater would have been behind us, and it would have 
been behind the President as well.
  Instead, we have been accused of engaging in partisan politics and 
with potentially interfering with the investigation being conducted by 
the special counsel, Robert Fiske. That is absolutely ridiculous, as I 
have pointed out already by the number of dual hearings that we have 
had while special counsel have proceeded with their responsibility.
  Finally, Mr. President, congressional oversight investigations, such 
as the one contemplated for Whitewater, are constitutionally 
appropriate and have often been conducted in parallel with 
investigations conducted by special prosecutors as I have said, and I 
think my remarks basically support that.
  So, I commend my friend from New York, and the minority leader for 
finally taking the aggressive posture necessary to move this off dead 
center when in reality we have been attempting to negotiate in good 
faith to get these hearings voluntarily up before us. Now we have to 
resort to the alternatives that are left to us, which are simply to 
demand the availability of whatever legislation is moving to force 
votes. And we know what will happen. There will obviously be second-
degree amendments. But eventually we are going to face it.
  I would ask just one final question of my friend from New York 
relative to the process that he anticipates. Is it indeed his intention 
and that of the minority leader that the first votes that we get after 
coming back we intend to proceed to put his amendment on any 
legislation that is moving?
  Mr. D'AMATO. The Senator from Alaska, my friend, is absolutely 
correct. It is my intent and that of at least 20-plus colleagues who 
have consulted with me and who have been very restrained, and indeed 
encouraged me to go forward today, to offer this legislation on all 
available legislation moving through when we return.
  I would hope that is not necessary. Indeed, it seems to me that we 
have allowed the process sufficient time to at least begin the moving 
forward in a responsible way to undertake our job in a spirit that will 
discharge our responsibilities to the American people, bring forth the 
facts, and do it in a responsible manner which will not impede or 
hamper the investigation or the undertakings of the special prosecutor. 
But we will do this. We have waited a sufficient period of time.
  I have urged restraint on my colleagues because I wanted to avoid the 
criticism that we were looking to impede progress in the Congress, 
impede other legislation, and that we were being unfair and 
unreasonable and not permitting sufficient time for the prosecutor to 
do his job. We have waited beyond the period he asked us to wait before 
we undertook our hearings as it related to whether or not there was 
improper interference between, for example, the Treasury Department and 
the White House as it related to the activities of the RTC.
  We indicated that if debate is over in 3, 4, or 5 weeks, we will 
proceed. I will be vigorous in pushing for votes. We may lose, but our 
friends and our colleagues on both sides will have to vote. They will 
not be able to simply go home and say, oh, we are working out details, 
we are waiting for the special prosecutor. They will no longer be able 
to hide behind that shield. I suggest that is what is taking place.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may further question my friend from New York. The 
resolution that will be presented as an amendment will specifically 
authorize or state that this body will vote up or down on whether to 
proceed with Whitewater hearings?
  Mr. D'AMATO. With the formulation of a committee specifically for 
conducting Whitewater hearings and laying out a methodology for us to 
go forward, that is right.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. So those who would vote against that would have to 
explain to the public why they felt it was inappropriate that the 
Senate proceed to authorize the hearing process through whatever 
committee structure it so designated.
  What could possibly be a reasonable explanation that one could give 
his or her constituents for voting against your amendment?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Well, they could say that the special counsel has not 
concluded his work, and we would indicate that we are prepared to go 
forth in a manner which would not impede his work, and that his major 
concern, as stated to Senator Cohen on the record, was that we would 
not grant immunity, and we would advise him as to whom we intended to 
subpoena so he could speak to them and examine them first, and that he 
be given leeway to move before us.
  We have certainly waited a more-than-sufficient period of time. There 
will be at least another 2 weeks before we can even set the committee 
up. It would take at least another 30 days thereafter. So if we were to 
proceed when we come back to the first step--the formation of the 
committee, the hiring of sufficient staff, the moving forward of the 
process, the consultation with the special counsel--we could not 
possibly begin for at least another 6 weeks.
  If people want to delay further, they will come forward and offer the 
same excuses, that we should do nothing until the special prosecutor in 
essence authorizes us to do that. That is an abdication of our 
responsibility. We are not here and should not be here to wait before 
we go forward until this special prosecutor, or any other special 
prosecutor, so-called signs off.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Well, how could one object and suggest that activities 
by a special committee would somehow distract from the special 
counsel's obligation when, as we have discussed, we have had both 
committee hearings and special counsel under Watergate, and under the 
BNL investigation, and under the October Surprise?
  Mr. D'AMATO. My friend from Alaska has basically really pointed to 
the obvious. There was a dual standard being applied. The only change 
is the change in circumstances, which is that there is a Democrat in 
the White House, and the Congress, which has been basically Democratic 
during these periods of time, had no difficulty with insisting in those 
cases on our oversight role.
  In responding to our responsibility to discharge by calling it 
``partisanship,'' the only difference is that the Democrats control the 
White House. Therefore, they are not willing to do that which they have 
done in the past, and that is, to have full and appropriate hearings.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I commend my friend from New York for his persistence 
on keeping this issue up where it belongs. I know he has taken a good 
deal of criticism as a consequence. But there is simply no 
justification for suggesting that it is inappropriate to hold 
congressional hearings on Whitewater when indeed we have seen fit time 
and time again to hold our hearings as we saw fit at the same time 
special counsel was doing its job.
  Again, I thank my friend from New York.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] is 
recognized.

                          ____________________