[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 74 (Tuesday, June 14, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
       FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1994

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, the question of hearings into the 
Whitewater affair is once again before us. I think there are some very 
real and very legitimate issues that have to be considered. That is why 
I am going to take some time to speak to the issue of why I believe the 
majority leader's amendment is deficient. It is not, I believe, the way 
in which to have real oversight hearings. It is a pretense, and it 
falls significantly short of the standards which the Senate has used 
repeatedly.
  Today, the American people are going to learn whether or not 
Congress, controlled by the Democratic Party, is capable of fulfilling 
its constitutional oversight responsibilities when there is a Democrat 
in the White House. The American people, who have watched the Congress 
during the past 12 years of Republican administrations, know only too 
well that Congress is capable of thorough, comprehensive, and extensive 
oversight. Indeed, over the 12 years of the Reagan and Bush 
administrations, the Congress launched full-scale oversight activities 
on at least 25 occasions in an effort to scrutinize the conduct of 
administration officials and their families.
  During those 12 years of Republican administrations, there were 
impassioned speeches by Democratic Members of this body about the 
solemn obligations of the Congress under the Constitution to search far 
and wide for truth and to lay all the facts before the American people.
  In fact, when the Senate held hearings on the Iran-Contra affair, 
this is what Senator Mitchell said.

       We have a solemn responsibility to present all the facts, 
     to bring the full truth to the American people as thoroughly 
     and as fairly and as promptly as possible.

  He went on to say,

       It is now time to begin the process of laying the facts 
     before the American people. If, when we finish these 
     hearings, they know the truth, we have been successful.

  I suggest that we use this same standard.
  During those 12 years of Republican administrations there were 
several independent counsel investigations. Never once during that time 
did the Democrats in Congress suggest that Congress should step aside 
and abandon or postpone its constitutional oversight responsibilities 
while the independent counsel conducted an investigation. Never once 
during that time did the Democrats in Congress suggest that the 
independent counsel should be able to dictate the scope or the timing 
of congressional oversight activities.
  Today, the American people who watched Congress over the past 12 
years of the Republican administrations are not going to believe their 
eyes or their ears. Because today, the same Democrats that stood 
steadfastly behind the principle that Congress has an independent 
obligation to investigate the facts and to lay the truth before the 
American people are probably going to support a coverup, a whitewash, a 
phony and transparent effort to engage in sham oversight activities.
  Mr. President, that is exactly what would take place if we proceeded 
under the methodology suggested by the amendment that is now being 
considered. Today, Americans are going to see our Democratic colleagues 
support an amendment authorizing oversight activities into the 
Whitewater affair that is so limited and so unfair, that it would have 
been rejected out of hand by the same Democrats during the past 12 
years of Republican administrations.
  Today I am going to ask my colleagues in the Senate and the American 
people to engage in their own oversight of this amendment and let them 
decide whether or not this amendment provides for the same thorough, 
fair, and prompt oversight of a Democratic administration that was 
demanded during the 12 years of Republican administrations.
  During Republican administrations, the majority leader's amendment 
would have called for, and I quote: ``An investigation into, and a 
study of, all matters which have any tendency to reveal the full facts 
about'' the Whitewater affair.
  Let me give an example. You might ask, ``Isn't it overreaching to 
call for an investigation and a study into all matters which have any 
tendency to reveal the full facts about the Whitewater affair?'' The 
response is no. As a matter of fact, that standard was used for prior 
investigations. The limited scope described in this amendment is a 
farce. There is nothing in this amendment that gives us the ability to 
look into any matter developed at the hearing.
  For example:

       The Senate Iran-Contra Committee was given the authority to 
     investigate and study any activity, circumstance, material, 
     or transaction having a tendency to prove or disprove that 
     any person engaged in any illegal, improper, unauthorized or 
     unethical conduct in connection with the shipment of arms to 
     Iran or the use of proceeds from arms sales to provide 
     assistance to the Nicaraguan rebels.

  Listen to those words: ``Any activity, circumstance, material, or 
transaction having a tendency to prove or disprove.''
  In this amendment before the Senate, here we have a piece of sterile, 
stripped-down legislation which authorizes us to do what?
  It authorizes us to:

       * * * (a) look into communications between officials of the 
     White House and the Department of Treasury or the Resolution 
     Trust Corporation relating to Whitewater; (b), the Park 
     Service police investigation into the death of Vince Foster; 
     (c), the way in which White House officials handled documents 
     in the Office of the White House Deputy Counsel, Vince 
     Foster, at the time of his death; and then make such findings 
     of fact as are warranted and appropriate.

  This is a travesty. This does not constitute real oversight or real 
investigation. If we wanted to simply whitewash the issues, we could 
simply accept whatever findings the special counsel put forth. Why do 
we not simply wait for him to complete his investigation, say that we 
have no jurisdiction in this matter and be bound by his findings? Then 
we would be surrendering our constitutional responsibilities.
  Let me refer to another committee, the Senate Watergate Committee, 
which was specifically authorized to investigate--and let me quote:

       Any activities, materials or transactions having a tendency 
     to prove or disprove that persons engaged in any illegal or 
     improper or unethical activities in connection with the 
     Presidential election of 1972.

  And yet, my colleagues in the Senate and the American people will 
search the amendment at the desk in vain for any reference to an 
investigation or study, let alone an investigation or study of all 
matters which have a tendency to reveal the full facts.
  Do we want the full facts? Do we really want them, or are we so 
desperate to keep anything that might be embarrassing to the 
administration from coming forth? Because this Senator wants the full 
facts revealed, this Senator must oppose this amendment.
  I have no illusions. I understand what is going to happen. It is 
going to be a party-line vote, and we are going to adopt this 
amendment. I will then be forced to offer a number of amendments--some 
47 that we have drafted--to the bill so that we can attempt to put 
forth a methodology for the hearings.
  This canard--and it is--should stop, and we should develop a 
methodology of going forth using the same methodology that we have used 
in the past, with basically the same kind of ratios on the committee, 
not 11 to 8. I will address that issue also.
  It appears that the congressional authority to investigate matters 
dealing with Presidents are gone, now that a Republican administration 
is gone. On March 17, 98 Senators said that it was the sense of the 
Senate that there should be ``appropriate congressional oversight, 
including hearings on all matters--and I repeat--all matters related to 
Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, Whitewater Development Corporation, 
and Capital Management Services, Inc.''
  Yet, today, the majority leader will urge his Democratic colleagues 
to support an amendment that fails to cover all matters relating to 
Whitewater, Madison, and Capital Management. Indeed, it only covers 
three very, very limited areas.
  My Senate colleagues and the American people should ask whether 
Democrats in Congress would accept oversight hearings with such a 
limited scope if there was a Republican President in the White House. 
Of course not. Yet, they will probably support it today.

  The amendment being considered appears to acknowledge that there are 
at least six committees or subcommittees in the Senate with oversight 
responsibilities over issues raised by the Whitewater affair: The 
Banking Committee, the Small Business Committee, the Judiciary 
Committee, the Finance Committee, the Public Lands and Parks 
Subcommittees, and the Permanent Investigation Subcommittee.
  During Republican administrations, if the Senate was to engage in 
serious oversight involving all of these various committees and 
subcommittees with legitimate constitutional oversight 
responsibilities, I think the majority leader's amendment probably 
would have called for the establishment of a select committee with 
either equal or closely bipartisan membership. In 1991, when the Senate 
established a select committee to look into the issue of POW-MIA's left 
in Vietnam, it created a bipartisan committee with six Democrats and 
six Republicans.
  The 1982 select committee created to investigate the undercover 
activities of the Justice Department was also bipartisan, with four 
Democrats and four Republicans.
  The 1987 Iran-Contra investigation was conducted by a Senate select 
committee of 11 members, six Democrats and five Republicans. The Senate 
created a special subcommittee of the Judiciary in 1980 to look into 
the links between Billy Carter and Libya. The subcommittee had five 
Democrats and four Republicans.
  I quote these so that we can look at precedents and what has been the 
established norm. Notice, Mr. President, we are talking about 
committees either totally balanced or committees with ratios giving to 
the majority one more member than the minority.
  The 1975 select committee investigating alleged improper activities 
by our intelligence agencies was composed of, again, six Democrats and 
five Republicans.
  The Senate Watergate Committee was composed of four Democrats and 
three Republicans.
  So I think there is ample precedent to suggest that we not have a 
committee with an 11-to-8 ratio. Yet, the appointment pending today 
requires that the Whitewater hearings be conducted in the Banking 
Committee, which has 11 Democrats and eight Republicans. No other 
committee in the Senate has a larger difference between the number of 
Democrat members and Republican members. Similarly, there is ample 
precedent to suggest that we have a committee that is authorized to do 
the work of the people, to investigate all relevant material and all 
facts derived, and to follow any leads from the committee's work.
  In light of the refusal to come forth with a bipartisan select 
committee, which was suggested by the Republican leader, the American 
people might conclude that the Democrats in Congress want to ensure 
that they control the conduct and outcome of Whitewater oversight 
hearings by insisting that the Democrats have a three-vote margin over 
Republicans.
  The majority leader is likely to suggest that the Banking Committee 
is the logical choice for holding Whitewater hearings because of its 
jurisdiction over issues dealing with the failure of Madison Guaranty. 
But the majority leader's amendment prevents the Banking Committee from 
examining any issues relating to the failure of Madison Guaranty. If 
you realized the scope of Madison Guaranty and its failure, there is no 
language that gives the Banking Committee the ability to really examine 
the causes of what took place.
  Indeed, the amendment insists that the hearings be held in the 
Banking Committee, even though two of the three issues that can be 
examined under the amendment deal, first, with the Park Service 
investigation of the death of Vince Foster under the jurisdiction of 
the Energy Committee and second, the way in which White House officials 
handled documents in the office of Vince Foster, which is under the 
jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee and the Governmental Affairs 
Committee.
  My Senate colleagues and the American people should ask whether the 
Banking Committee was chosen because of its expertise in these areas or 
because the Democrats have a larger majority of members in that 
committee.
  During a Republican administration, the majority leader's amendment 
would have made certain that congressional oversight committees had 
access to all of the information necessary to conduct a complete 
investigation. During a Republican administration, this amendment would 
have contained an express provision granting authority to order Federal 
and State governments to produce all relevant documents. The amendment 
would have also contained an express provision granting access to any 
relevant evidence in the control of the Government.
  These specific authorities are not something that I have created, Mr. 
President. These specific authorities were given to the Senate Select 
Committee investigating Iran-Contra, the select committee to 
investigate the Justice Department's undercover activities, established 
in 1982, and the Senate Select Committee investigating Watergate. Yet, 
today, these specific powers, which are absolutely necessary if one is 
going to hold a real and meaningful oversight hearing, are absent.
  To what conclusion can one come? I would say that the only difference 
today is that we have a Democrat in the White House. The amendment at 
hand ignores prior precedent. It should have contained these express 
provisions empowering us to gather information from others and give us 
access to relevant documents. It seems to me that when the Senate 
established the Select Committee on Iran-Contra, it concluded with a 
similar statement encouraging the committee to obtain information 
acquired or developed by other investigatory bodies, and that directive 
is missing in this amendment. It should be here. Why should not 
evidence or facts developed by other relevant investigatory bodies, 
whether they be State or Federal, not be available to the Congress?
  During Republican administrations, this amendment would have 
contained a provision requesting the independent counsel to make 
relevant evidence available to the oversight committees to assist the 
Congress in conducting a thorough investigation in an expeditious 
fashion.
  Now, I do not just say it would have been for no reason. Let me tell 
you why I come to this conclusion. Because such a provision in the 
resolution establishing the Senate Iran-Contra Select Committee in 1987 
existed but it is not here. Why? What is different? Have our 
responsibilities changed? Has the Constitution changed? No. The only 
difference is that there is a Democrat in the White House and so now we 
do not empower the Congress to do what it has done for 20-plus years.
  Today, my Senate colleagues would search the majority leader's 
amendment in vain for any indication that the independent counsel 
should make available his evidence to the Whitewater Oversight 
Committee. You mean to tell me if he has developed information that 
could aid and assist us, information that might not be of a criminal 
nature but would be important to this committee and its work, that with 
the millions of dollars which will be spent for and by the independent 
counsel, the people should not have access through their 
representatives and through a special committee to review that 
information and to determine whether or not there are relevant facts 
that should be put forth?
  Mr. President, it is time for my Senate colleagues and the American 
people to ask, would the Democrats in Congress accept an amendment with 
all these glaring deficiencies if they were conducting oversight 
hearings with a Republican President in the White House? I do not think 
so. As a matter of fact, they never have. Perhaps if the Senate for 
just one moment could pretend that there was a Republican in the White 
House, then it could determine what should be the authorizing scope of 
the committee. Should it have access to relevant documents contained by 
State officials and by others and information developed by special 
counsel? If the Senate could pretend that there was a Republican in the 
White House then possibly they could muster the courage to vote to 
defeat this amendment instead of merely pretending to provide a 
thorough and fair Whitewater oversight hearing.
  The amendment at hand is a pretense, and it is a poor one. It does 
not do this body or the American people justice. It does not empower us 
to conduct fair, thorough, and impartial hearings. And it is a very 
poor pretense at that.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Breaux). Who yields time?
  Mr. D'AMATO. I yield whatever time the Senator from Missouri needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 12\1/2\ minutes. The 
Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I thank my ranking member for his great 
leadership on this issue and also for his kindness in allocating me 
some time.
  Mr. President, I wish to spend a few minutes discussing the amendment 
offered by the Democratic leader. As observers of this debate should 
know by now, we have before us one serious proposal to fulfill our 
constitutional oversight responsibilities and hold full and complete 
hearings on the Whitewater-Madison affair and related activities. And 
we have a substitute proposal offered by the Senate majority leader 
which should not be considered serious. One proposal says look at the 
facts. The other says look only at these select facts. Do not ask 
anything beyond that and do not ask about motives or purposes or 
content or background.
  The serious proposal, that of the Senator from New York, understands 
that to limit the scope of the hearings is to continue the 
stonewalling. The sham proposal understands that as well but apparently 
it hopes to get away with it.
  Let me go over what the Mitchell fig leaf amendment would allow those 
of us on the Banking Committee to do. We could:

       Conduct hearings on whether improper conduct occurred 
     regarding the three following issues:
       (A) Communications between officials of the White House, 
     the Department of Treasury and the Resolution Trust 
     Corporation relating to the Whitewater Development 
     Corporation and Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan 
     Association;
       (B) The Park Service Police investigation into the death of 
     White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster; and
       (C) The way in which White House officials handled 
     documents in the office of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent 
     Foster at the time of his death.

  And then we can make such findings of fact which are warranted and 
appropriate.
  What does that mean? Let me review the point. First, communications. 
The Mitchell amendment would allow us to ask questions about the heads-
up briefing given by Secretary Altman to White House officials. We 
could ask potentially why he was interfering with the special 
prosecutor's investigation by having this meeting, any subsequent phone 
calls 2 weeks after the special counsel was appointed. We could ask to 
whom he talked, when, and who made the decision to brief the White 
House.
  We could then question Treasury Counsel Jean Hanson about her 
improper briefings about the RTC criminal referral. We could ask who 
briefed her, who else discussed the referrals, who asked for the 
briefings. We could ask who directed her to inform the White House, who 
initiated the contacts, and who else she may have talked to about the 
criminal referrals. But we could not ask what was in the referrals. We 
could not ask why the tip offs and heads up were so important that 
Federal officials would violate their own procedures in order to 
divulge information. If I were to ask: Well, what was in the referrals 
that was worth jeopardizing your career, it would be totally in order 
under the Mitchell amendment for the chairman of the Banking Committee 
to say: Sorry, out of order; it does not pertain to the communications. 
It pertains to the content.
  We could also not follow up on questions I asked this past February 
about whether the RTC has a special system for handling politically 
sensitive cases, as we now know they do. But when was it developed? How 
often is it used? Were other politically connected people given special 
treatment as the First Family?
  This line of questions is clearly relevant to how the RTC does its 
job and how it may or may not have fallen down on the job in the 
Madison Guaranty case. But the Mitchell amendment would not allow these 
legitimate background-setting questions to be asked.
  What about the Department of Justice? At the time of the second 
briefing at the White House, Justice had the criminal referrals. Do you 
mean to tell me that when we hold these hearings to get at the facts we 
cannot ask the simple question: Did anyone at the White House talk to 
anyone at the Department of Justice about these referrals? How 
ludicrous is that?
  This administration has shown they were willing to take extraordinary 
steps to manage and control the Whitewater-Madison case. They had a 
team of people at Treasury keeping tabs on it. How do we know there was 
not another team at Justice?
  Remember Assistant Attorney General Webb Hubbell in Little Rock or 
U.S. Attorney Paula Casey? Paula Casey handled the first RTC criminal 
referral on Madison Guaranty and had successfully buried it by deciding 
not to prosecute. And the Department of Justice had received the second 
referral a week before the second RTC-Treasury White House briefing. 
Thus, while the White House was meeting on the referral, the Department 
of Justice already had it. Surely, the White House would have wanted to 
know what the Justice Department was planning to do.
  So did Webb Hubbell or his staff talk to the White House? Were there 
meetings between Justice and the White House? Had Justice told the 
White House or the Clintons about the first referral they had killed 
off? Did they inform them about the second set?
  And do not forget, after the press brought this issue to the 
attention of the country, both Webb Hubbell and Paula Casey determined 
that they were so close to the case that they both recused themselves. 
However, I must note that these recusals came a month after Justice 
received the second referral--but only a week after the referral's 
existence became public. So why the delay? What instructions did they 
give prior to their recusals? Did they violate Justice policies on 
recusals because of their delay? How could they have been involved in 
the first referral--to such a degree that Paula Casey made the final 
decision not to prosecute--but then decide to bow out and recuse 
themselves on the second set of referrals? What was different in the 
two instances?
  Unfortunately, the Democratic leader's amendment would not allow 
these questions. Under the Mitchell amendment, this part of the 
Washington story would just stay swept under the rug.
  Mr. President, this leads to an interesting question. Why would this 
topic not be included--instead, in fact, be specifically excluded?
  It is not part of the Arkansas portion that Fiske continues to work 
on. In fact one of the potential key players, Webb Hubbell, has already 
resigned. So if the leadership is serious about this, as they say they 
are, what possible reason could there be for telling Congress that we 
cannot ask one question about how Justice handled this entire 
matter? And even more interesting, during our one hearing in the 
Banking Committee, I submitted a series of questions to the RTC asking 
about timing and the handling of criminal referral. Let me go over some 
of these questions and the responses from the RTC.

  Question 3B:

       I am particularly troubled by the fact that it took over a 
     year for the RTC to receive an official response in the 
     initial criminal referral. Also, is it normal RTC practice to 
     send additional investigators for further investigation on a 
     matter before hearing that status of the first referral?

  Answer from the RTC:

       There is no standardized procedure in this regard. Any 
     questions concerning responses from the Department of Justice 
     in this matter should be directed to the Department of 
     Justice.

  The next question has two parts to Mr. Altman about a memo from the 
Criminal Division of the Department of Justice which concluded that the 
criminal referral did not appear to warrant initiation of criminal 
questions. I asked, A, how the decision was made.

       B: Who was responsible for communicating these decisions?

  The answer, No. 4--and I will read it in full--is as follows:

       A: This question should be directed to the Department of 
     Justice.
       B: This question should be directed to the Department of 
     Justice.

  There were four separate responses from the RTC saying these 
questions should be directed to the Department of Justice. But the 
majority leader's proposal continues to block us from getting these 
answers from the Department of Justice.
  Now those are just a few of my concerns about the communications 
provisions of the Mitchell amendment. The second topic is the Park 
Service Police investigation. My reading of this is we could not ask 
one question about why the FBI was not immediately put on the case. We 
could not interview or question the FBI agents who stood around waiting 
for permission from the White House counsel to look for evidence in 
Foster's office. We could not ask whether it was the White House or 
someone else who made the decision to use the Park Police rather than 
the FBI.
  Instead we would be restricted to interviewing or questioning those 
Park Service personnel involved in the investigation. Again, I must ask 
why?
  And third, and perhaps the most flagrant example of why the Mitchell 
amendment deserves the sham label is the category the way in which 
White House officials handled documents in the office of White House 
Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster at the time of his death.
  This is almost the theater of the absurd. For this means we could ask 
whether staff used their right or left hand to handle or pick up the 
files. We could ask as to whether they were in manila or cream colored 
folders? Were they in boxes, or inside other accordion files? Were they 
heavy or light? Were they then placed in a box or other file in order 
to remove them secretly? Were they handed off to anyone? If so who? And 
did that person hand them to someone else, et cetera, et cetera.
  But we could not ask the obvious question--what was in the files? The 
Mitchell amendment makes that fundamental question outside the scope.
  Mr. President, I kind of wonder. Now why would high level White House 
staffers be searching Vince Foster's office hours after his death? What 
were they looking for? Did they find it? Why did they conceal this 
information from the investigators? Under the Mitchell amendment we are 
supposed to be happy with the conclusion that these were motiveless 
acts.
  And equally important, what were Whitewater/Madison files doing in 
Foster's office in the first place? Who, besides Foster, knew of their 
existence? Did anyone else work on them or have access to them? These 
would also be questions that would be outside the scope under the 
majority leader's amendment.
  Mr. President, any fair minded person who reviews this record would 
come to the conclusion that the Mitchell amendment is simply not 
serious. It is only an effort to give lip service to hearings, while 
fulfilling its real goal of providing political cover to this 
administration.
  What is needed is a balanced panel, with the authority to review the 
relevant questions. It should coordinate with Special Counsel Fiske, 
but not be controlled by it, and it should have as its goal placing all 
the facts on the table--the whos, whats, wheres, whens, whys and hows.
  The majority leaders proposal fails this test.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York controls 37 seconds; 
the majority leader controls 40 minutes, 58 seconds.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, and Members of the Senate, for several 
months the public opinion polls have shown that more than two-thirds of 
the American people, over 70 percent in some polls, believe that Senate 
Republicans are not seriously interested in the Whitewater matter but 
are doing this for purely political purposes.
  Almost every word spoken on the floor of the Senate today by our 
Republican colleagues confirms that judgment by the American people.
  What our colleagues want is a political circus. They are not 
interested in a serious investigation. They want a political circus for 
two reasons.
  First, as a vehicle to attack the President. Week after week after 
week we have seen the most flagrant use of innuendo on the Senate floor 
as one Republican Senator after another makes unsubstantiated, 
unproven, reckless allegations about the President and Mrs. Clinton, 
all in an effort to talk about these hearings, all in an effort to 
damage the character and reputation of the President and First Lady of 
the United States. That is what is behind all this--raw partisan 
politics.
  The second reason for all of this dust thrown in the air is to divert 
attention from the complete absence of any Republican program to 
address the problems confronting this country. Every American knows the 
Republican position on Whitewater. But there is not a single American 
who knows the Republican position on economic growth and creating jobs 
in this country, and that is because there is not one.
  I challenge any American listening to these words today to write down 
what is the Republican program for economic growth and job creation. 
There is not one.
  Last year--just a year ago--we stood on this Senate floor and debated 
the President's economic plan, and the very people who have been 
standing here arguing about Whitewater stood up and said if we passed 
the President's economic plan economic growth will go down, the deficit 
will go up and unemployment will go up.
  We passed it, and every Republican voted against it. And what has 
happened since then? It is the opposite of what they said. Economic 
growth has gone way up, unemployment has gone way down, and the deficit 
has gone way down. And as the economy has improved, the faces of our 
Republican colleagues have grown longer and longer. They do not have 
anything to talk about. They do not have a program for economic growth. 
They do not have a program for creating jobs. They do not have a 
program for dealing with health care reform.
  Well, here comes manna from heaven in the form of Whitewater. So now 
they have a program. You could write the entire Republican platform in 
one word--Whitewater. That is it.
  On March 17, 98 Senators voted 98 to 0 for a resolution which said 
that there should be hearings, and ``The hearings should be structured 
and sequenced in such a manner that in the judgment of the leaders they 
would not interfere with the ongoing investigation of special counsel 
Robert B. Fiske, Jr.''
  Now my colleague from Missouri just stood up and said, ``Well, we can 
ask about the referrals by the RTC but we cannot ask about the content 
of the referrals.'' That is exactly right, because the special counsel 
has strongly urged that there not be inquiries about the contents of 
the referrals at this time because it will jeopardize his 
investigation.
  On March 9, in a press conference, he said expressly that. After 
meeting with the Senator from New York and other of our colleagues, he 
said: ``When they finish the first phase of the investigation, we would 
have no objection to congressional hearings at that point so long as 
something can be done to protect against having the contents of the RTC 
referrals themselves come out in those hearings.''
  That is precisely the point.
  So when the Senator from Missouri says we want to get out the 
contents of those referrals, he is contradicting his own vote for the 
resolution of March 17 and directly contradicting the specific request 
orally and in writing of the special counsel. In other words, not only 
are our colleagues so desperate for political circus that they will 
make unsubstantiated and reckless allegations about the President and 
the First Lady of the United States, but they are prepared to 
contradict themselves. Almost every position taken with respect to this 
resolution directly contradicts a prior position by our Republican 
colleagues.
  On the subject of the referrals, as I have just noticed; on the 
subject of immunity; on almost every other subject they have zigged and 
zagged and flipped and flopped and have gone back and forth. And why is 
that? Because there is no consistent principle behind their position. 
All they want to do is to be able to throw sticks and stones at the 
President and Mrs. Clinton. And if it takes a zig to be able to throw 
stones at the President, they will zig; if it takes a zag to be able to 
throw stones at the President, they will zag; if it takes a flip to 
throw stones at the President, they there will flip; if it takes a flop 
to throw stones at the President, they will flop. Zig and zag, flip and 
flop, one position today, another position tomorrow, a third position 
next day, a fourth position the next day. There is simply no consistent 
principle behind their views.
  And that makes it clear. It is an effort to attack and undermine the 
character and reputation of the President of the United States and to 
divert attention from their own lack of any meaningful program to deal 
with the problems of this country.
  Mr. President, I want to address the question of the scope of the 
investigation. I have said right from the beginning publicly here on 
the Senate floor, in press conferences, and privately in discussions 
with our colleagues that the Congress will meet its responsibility of 
oversight in this matter in a serious responsible way. We are not going 
to participate in and condone a political circus, as our colleagues 
want. We are going to do it in a serious way.
  This resolution provides for hearings on those matters that are to be 
completed in the investigation of the special counsel at this time. 
There can and should be no doubt that the remainder of the matters will 
also be the subject of hearings at a time when it does not interfere 
with or undermine the special counsel's investigation, and the best 
evidence that that will occur is that we are now going to have these 
hearings. The same people who are here now saying we will not have 
hearings in the future also said we would not have these hearings. They 
were dead wrong on that, and they are dead wrong on the statements 
today.
  The question is whether the Senate will now honor its resolution, 
passed 98 to 0 on March 17, that the hearings shall be structured and 
sequenced in such a manner that they would not interfere with the 
ongoing investigation of the special counsel.
  Let me repeat once again, lest anyone has forgotten. Our Republican 
colleagues called for the appointment of a special counsel. He was 
appointed. The special counsel is a Republican, a lifelong Republican, 
a man of total integrity and with a high reputation. His appointment 
was praised by our Republican colleagues, including the Senator from 
New York. But not 5 minutes after he took office, they began to ask for 
congressional hearings, which the special counsel has said will, if 
conducted as they wish, undermine his investigation. Once again, a 
complete flip-flop in position, a zigging and zagging, all for the 
purpose of trying to undermine the President and First Lady of the 
United States.
  That is what this is all about. How else could someone take a 
position one day and reverse it the next, take a position one week and 
reverse it the next, take a position one month and reverse it the next?
  There have been more zigs, more zags, more flips, more flops by our 
Republican colleagues on this issue than I have seen on almost any 
other issue that has come before the Senate. And that is what happens 
when you do not have a consistent principle motivating your actions.
  When your only objective is political, when your only objective is 
partisan, when your only objective is to attack and undermine the 
President of the United States, then, of course, flips and flops and 
zigs and zags do not mean anything. That is why our colleagues take one 
position one day and reverse the next day. That is why they cast a vote 
unanimously on March 17 and then take an opposite position when they 
come before the Senate here.
  The American people know that. They understand it very well. That is 
why our colleagues are not scoring any points on this. I know it is 
frustrating to them. But nobody is paying attention to this.
  The fact of the matter is, the people know what is going on. They 
know that our colleagues only want a political circus to attack the 
President and divert attention away from their lack of having any 
meaningful program to deal with the problems facing this country.
  Mr. President, I conclude by asking the American people again--you 
know the Republican program on Whitewater; they have talked about it 
enough--is there a single American who knows the Republican program for 
economic growth or job creation? The answer is no, because there is not 
one. That tells you the story right there.


                           Order of Procedure

  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the order is that 
the Senate will now stand in recess.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be 
allowed to continue for 10 minutes, so that I might speak as if in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is their objection?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, we have a caucus and we have to have a 
presiding officer.
  Might I suggest that our colleague come back? The Senator from New 
York is out of time in this debate. I was going to give him some of my 
time additionally afterward.
  Would he agree to give that time to the Senator from Mississippi?
  Mr. LOTT. If I could inquire of the Chair, on the time agreement, has 
there been a time entered into for a vote at a specific time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LOTT. That was divided in such a way that Senator D'Amato's time 
has all been used?
  Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct.
  Mr. LOTT. I would like to ask, Mr. President, if I could take 
advantage of the offer that the distinguished majority leader has made. 
I would like to come back at the appointed time of 2:30 and I would 
like to have an opportunity to speak at that time, if he would be kind 
enough to yield such time, because I do feel like the leader made some 
points I would like to comment on. I would appreciate his assistance so 
that I may have that opportunity.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Let me be clear. The time was divided 41 minutes each. 
The Senator used up all of his 41 minutes before I said a word. I have 
30 minutes left. The Senator has no time left. He asked me if I would 
accommodate him and give him an additional 5 minutes of time during the 
remaining period. I told him I would do so.
  I would be pleased to do that and I would be glad to extend that to 
10 minutes, if the Senator would like some time. But that would be from 
2:30 to 2:40. In other words, I will give you more of my time.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the majority leader for that offer. I would like to 
take advantage of it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will observe that the Senator from 
New York controls 37 seconds.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from New York control the time from 2:30 to 2:40 and that I control the 
time from 2:40 to the vote at 3 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request? Hearing none, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________