[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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Dorgan). Under the previous order, the 
time until 2:40 p.m. is under the control of the Senator from New York 
[Mr. D'Amato].
  Who seeks recognition.
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, we divided the time up in such a way 
that the Republicans had used all of their time prior to 2:30, and the 
remaining half-hour was under my control.
  I then agreed to cede to our Republican colleagues 10 minutes of my 
time between 2:30 and 2:40, and then I would take from 2:40 until 3.
  Our colleagues are not present so I will suggest the absence of a 
quorum and ask the time be charged against our colleagues----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withhold his suggestion?
  Mr. MITCHELL. I see the Senator on the floor and the Senator has 
until 2:40 on the matter.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the majority leader. I appreciate his generosity, 
giving us this opportunity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Mississippi [Mr. Lott].
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I cannot help but wonder that the majority 
leader protests too much. He says there is, you know, no real push to 
have these hearings. He says there does not appear to be a lot of 
interest in it--or at least that was my interpretation of what he was 
saying before the noon hour.
  I think all we are trying to do is to reach an agreement whereby we 
can have these hearings, some process to make sure that we have the 
hearings and that there is a reasonable amount of time allowed for it 
and that there is a committee that is designated and has the ability to 
ask any legitimate questions about what is involved in Whitewater. That 
is all we are trying to do here, is to get some process agreed to.
  I was looking at this resolution that has been referred to several 
times that passed overwhelmingly. What that resolution said, when we 
passed it some several weeks ago--it says, among other things, 
``including hearings on all matters related to `Madison Guaranty 
Savings & Loan Association, Whitewater Development Corp., and Capital 
Management Services Inc.'''
  That is pretty broad. The resolution that the majority leader has 
offered, it would seem to me, would not allow for all matters related 
to Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan to be included in these hearings. So 
I think we should get serious about reaching an agreement on what the 
time would be and recognize these hearings are going to go beyond these 
very narrow, restricted areas that are in the majority leader's 
resolution.
  What are we going to do if we get in the Banking Committee and a 
Senator asks a legitimate, related question to Madison Guaranty Savings 
& Loan? Is he going to be cut off by the chairman? Why, of course not.
  If it does run into some conflict with the Fiske investigation, I am 
sure the committee leadership, the chairman and the ranking member, 
will make every effort to accommodate that. But to say it is going to 
be limited to these very narrow areas, we cannot get into other related 
issues, is just not going to be acceptable.
  It is being said here this is just playing politics. That is all that 
is involved--just politics. As a matter of fact, I have a number of 
quotes here from the past on other issues. You remember a few years ago 
we had the Iran-Contra hearing? This is a quote from the leader at the 
time.

       This investigation need not and will not paralyze 
     government or permanently damage the presidency. Instead, it 
     can demonstrate anew the strength of democratic government 
     conducted openly; it can reaffirm the important principle 
     that in America no one is above the Constitution and everyone 
     must obey the law.

  Well said. And I would think it would be applicable to this set of 
circumstances. Some of us remember the so-called October Surprise. I do 
not know there has ever been a more bogus issue, but we had this 
October Surprise that was supposed to happen in 1992. There was some 
concern that maybe this was just playing politics because, after all, 
it was involving the Presidential election. I have here a statement 
from the Speaker of the House, Speaker Foley, and the majority leader 
in the Senate, Senator Mitchell.

       We have no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing. But the 
     seriousness of the allegations and the weight of the 
     circumstantial information compel an effort to establish the 
     facts.

  It seems to me that should be the situation here. To have a committee 
with a reasonable amount of time to do their job without restricting 
and tying their hands to find the facts is our constitutional 
responsibility.
  So I do not feel at all that anybody is trying to play politics with 
this. In fact, it looks to me like the politics is on the other side. 
We have been talking about having these hearings for weeks now, and I 
know negotiations have gone on between our respective leaders, Senator 
Dole and Senator Mitchell, but they have not come to a conclusion. Now 
we are told, if you do not take it the way we have offered it where the 
hearings do not even begin until after, probably, July 30, and with 
these very strict limitations, then you are not serious about having a 
hearing. We are serious. I think with just a couple of changes our 
leaders could get together and set up a process that would go forward. 
So I urge that be done.
  But to think that we are just going to have to take what the majority 
leader has offered here, the way he offered it, whole hog, and just go 
with it--that is just not going to happen. We have a right to expect a 
fair and complete hearing but not a sham.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from New 
York controls 3 minutes 10 seconds.
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New York 
[Mr. D'Amato].
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am wondering, since I only have 3 
minutes and some odd seconds, if the majority leader might not use some 
of his time? I think Senator Dole would like to speak. So I would like 
to offer him that 3 minutes, if he would like. I cannot find him right 
now. Let us say, if we could speak up to the last 3 to 5 minutes? I 
know the majority leader would want to wrap up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Maine, 
the majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I have already yielded 10 minutes of my 
time to my Republican colleagues, and I will be pleased to yield more 
to accommodate the distinguished Republican leader.
  I would like to have it so that, as is our regular practice, the 
minority leader makes the next-to-the-last statement and the majority 
leader makes the last statement.
  Mr. D'AMATO. That was my intent. We sent out for the minority leader, 
to let him know that he does have 3 minutes to speak.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I just point out, in this debate today, Republican 
Senators have spoken for about 50 minutes and Democratic Senators have 
spoken for about 10 minutes.
  I want to be accommodating. I want to be fair. I think fairness 
suggests there be something like reasonable equity in time. But why 
does my colleague not proceed for whatever couple of minutes he has. I 
will speak and then I will yield to the Republican leader when he comes 
in. Here he is now. If he would like to speak?
  Mr. D'AMATO. The Republican leader is here, and I am prepared to 
yield him whatever time I have, the 3 minutes you gave me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would advise the Senator from New 
York that the Senator from New York controls the time until 2:40, which 
is 1 minute 20 seconds, after which the majority leader controls the 
time.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
distinguished Republican leader be recognized for 5 minutes of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Kansas, 
the Republican leader, for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader.
  We have agreed to vote at 3 o'clock. I think there is no doubt about 
the outcome of that vote. But I wanted to go back to the resolution we 
passed on March 17, as I recall, by a vote of 98 to zero.
  In that vote we endorsed hearings on all matters-- all matters--``all 
matters related to Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association, 
Whitewater Development Corp., and Capital Management Services Inc.''
  As I said in the past, the majority leader and I tried to get 
together. We both acted in good faith. We could not work out an 
agreement. This is a very politically sensitive matter. We did not make 
a great deal of progress.
  So today we are deadlocked. You might call it Whitewater gridlock. In 
effect, we are being told, ``Well, that vote in March did not really 
mean anything because we don't want to have hearings on all the 
matters; we want to have hearings on just some of the issues.''
  So we have a choice here. We have two amendments: One seeks a full 
airing, and one seeks a limited airing. The D'Amato amendment, in 
effect, directs us to fulfill our oversight responsibilities. The 
amendment by the distinguished majority leader, in my view--and you can 
argue about it, I guess--abdicates too much responsibility to Mr. 
Fiske, to an unelected bureaucrat, a good lawyer, appointed by the 
Attorney General, and he, in effect, will determine when Congress can 
have hearings and what we can ask witnesses and what the scope will be. 
So it seems to me that it is fairly clear.
  We are the minority, and maybe the minority should not have any 
rights. I guess that is what this vote is all about. We will have to 
accept as a minority whatever we get; we ought to be thankful we are 
going to have very limited hearings and a committee that is controlled 
11 to 8 by the Democrats and a resolution that says we have to complete 
our work by the end of this Congress.
  We do not know when we are going to start the hearings. Maybe not 
until August. It seems to me it is particularly bad precedent that, in 
effect, Republicans in this case--because in my view the minority-
majority can change--but at this time in history, the Republicans are 
the minority and the Democrats have the majority. Under the resolution 
we are going to be asked to vote on, we would not be allowed to examine 
the Justice Department's handling of the RTC criminal referrals. That 
is outside the scope.
  We would not be able to look at how Madison Guaranty was treated by 
the S&L regulators, because that is outside the scope.
  We would not be able to look into the SBA loans that somehow found 
their way into the Whitewater partnership because that is outside the 
very limited scope of the hearings.
  We would not be able to look into anything on commodities, because 
that is outside the scope, even though, as I understand, the 
independent counsel is not even going to look into the commodities 
issue. But we cannot look into it, either.
  We would not be able to ask the U.S. attorney in Little Rock why she 
delayed so long in recusing herself from the prosecution of David Hale.
  So it seems to me we have a problem on this side of the aisle. We do 
not want to frustrate the majority leader nor the majority, but it 
seems to me if a party--in this case the Republican Party--has any 
rights at all, if you are the minority, we had better demonstrate what 
we believe those rights are now, because next year the shoe may be on 
the other foot.
  So this is a very important issue, as far as this Senator is 
concerned. And as I said before, I never accused anybody of anything in 
the so-called Whitewater affair; I never made any accusation. I heard 
the Senator from Arkansas, I think properly, say a lot of accusations 
are being made. But not by this Senator.
  What about the 25 hearings during the Reagan and Bush 
administrations, was that just politics, too? When we had Republican 
Presidents, all those hearings by a Democratic Congress, 25, was that 
all politics?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOLE. I ask if I may have 1 minute of my leader's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, so whether it was the October Surprise, or 
something else, I do not think a political circus standard was then in 
effect. I still hope we can resolve some major areas of disagreement 
that would give the American people a right to have us conduct fair 
hearings, and they can sort it out. The American people are very smart 
and sophisticated. They are going to determine what is fact and what is 
fiction.
  So, Mr. President, I hope none of my colleagues vote for the pending 
amendment. This is bad precedent. Today, it is the Republicans who are 
being penalized. Next year, it could be the other party that might be 
penalized if this becomes a precedent.
  Robert Fiske's job is criminal prosecution. Our job is public 
disclosure. And I hope, in this case, we will have public disclosure on 
a bipartisan basis.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who seeks 
recognition?
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, do I have about 2 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York has 1 minute 17 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, that is probably more than enough time.
  Let me say it is our constitutional responsibility to the American 
people to search for the truth about the Whitewater affair and to 
provide the facts to the public, and we cannot do that without the 
proper tools.
  But the pending amendment does not give us that ability, does not 
provide us with the ability to go forward. Indeed, it is an empty 
toolbox.
  There is no way we can do our jobs unless we improve this amendment. 
I hope that we will have that opportunity. This amendment is going to 
be adopted. I hope we can improve upon it, either legislatively or by 
way of accommodation with the majority.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader, 
Senator Mitchell.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, the issue today is whether the Senate 
will meet its constitutional obligations in a serious and responsible 
manner, or whether the Senate will participate in a political circus. 
That is the issue.
  The resolution on which we will vote at 3 p.m. is consistent with the 
resolution adopted by a vote of 98-0 in the Senate on March 17 and 
will, in fact, provide precisely what the Senator from Mississippi has 
asked: Hearings before an appropriate committee that will permit 
legitimate questions and establish the truth. What it will not permit 
is the kind of political circus that our colleagues want to engage in 
for the sole purpose--the sole purpose--of attacking the President and 
the First Lady of the United States.
  Mr. President, the distinguished minority leader said the issue is 
whether the minority should not have any rights. But the fact is that 
the resolution offered here by our Republican colleagues provides for 
rights that are broader and more expansive than ever before granted in 
the history of the U.S. Senate. Never in the more than 200 years of 
history of this Senate, as far as we have been able to determine 
through research, and I asked the Senator from New York and he could 
not confirm it, has the minority been given the power that they seek in 
their resolution.
  They want to expand powers not just to have any rights but just to 
have total rights, to be able to conduct independently a political 
circus. Never before in the history of this Senate have these rights 
been granted to the minority, whether it was Democrat or Republican.
  And so let us be clear about it. The issue is not whether the 
minority is to have any rights; the issue is whether the minority is to 
have rights that are without precedent, that have never before been 
granted, for what is obviously an effort to make this into a political 
circus.
  The statement was made we do not know whether they will start until 
August. But, Mr. President, by its very terms, the resolution I have 
offered requires the hearings to start not later than July 30, and 
sooner if the special counsel shortly concludes his investigation.
  With respect to the scope of the hearings, the resolution passed by 
the Senate by a vote of 98-0 in March said, and I quote:

       The hearings should be structured in sequence 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.

  That is what the resolution said that every Senator voted for. We are 
now going to conduct hearings on the phase of the investigation being 
completed by the special counsel consistent with that resolution, and 
we will have hearings on the remainder of the subjects when the special 
counsel completes the remainder of the investigation.
  Our colleagues are pursuing a course of action which, if adopted, 
would very likely undermine and negate the special counsel's 
investigation and make it impossible for full justice to be done. 
Everyone in the Senate recalls the Iran-Contra matter which has been 
raised several times by our colleagues. Arising out of that the matter, 
former Marine Col. Oliver North was indicted and convicted on three 
felony counts, and those convictions were then overturned by the court 
of appeals. In its decision, the court of appeals set forth a test for 
witnesses testifying under congressional immunity which effectively 
precludes their subsequent prosecution. And as the special counsel in 
that case and many others have since said, it is clear Congress must 
now make a choice: either have congressional investigations or permit 
investigations by counsels and prosecutors to go forward, and in that 
investigation, I repeat, let the chips fall where they may. If there 
has been wrongdoing, the special counsel will find it and prosecute and 
punish the appropriate people.
  In order to meet that objection, at the time we debated the March 
resolution and before, our colleagues were very firm in their position 
that no immunity should be granted. On March 9, Senator D'Amato in a 
press conference following a meeting with Mr. Fiske said, ``We have 
made it clear to Mr. Fiske that under no circumstances do we intend to 
grant immunity.''
  ``Under no circumstances.'' Mr. Fiske said, following the same 
meeting, ``I've been assured that immunity will not be granted to any 
witness in any of these investigations. That is an extremely positive 
assurance as far as we're concerned from the point of view of our 
investigation and we're very grateful to hear that.''
  Now our colleague comes in and proposes a resolution that would 
permit the granting of immunity, and the Senator from New York spent a 
long time in the Chamber requesting, arguing for the right to grant 
immunity with the approval of the special counsel. But there was no 
question about approval in these statements in March. ``Under no 
circumstances'' means under no circumstances. It does not mean after 
someone else's approval.
  And so, Mr. President, I say this is a good example of the kind of 
zigging and zagging and flipping and flopping that comes from the fact 
that there is no consistent principle behind my colleague's resolution.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. MITCHELL. No, I will not. We had 82 minutes, and I have given the 
Republicans 60 of those minutes--more than 60 of those minutes. I would 
like to have a chance to say a few words.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I thank the Senator.
  Now, Mr. President, what we have had is going back and forth because 
the purpose motivating this is to embarrass the President and Mrs. 
Clinton. And the American people know that. The polls are consistent. 
Up to 70 percent of the American people report and conclude that our 
Republican colleagues are doing this for political purposes; that they 
are not seriously interested in this matter; that it is political in 
nature.
  Finally, another difference: Who would conduct the investigation? We 
have a committee structure in Congress. We have a committee with 
jurisdiction over this matter. We have a committee in which all prior 
discussions and hearings on this matter have been held. But our 
colleagues do not want that. Now they want a special committee, one 
which itself has no precedent, one which would have equal membership 
and have a Republican cochairman who would be invested with powers that 
have never previously been granted in the Senate's history.
  That tells you the intention is not to conduct a serious 
investigation within the established practices based upon the 
procedures and precedents of the Senate, in the committee which has 
jurisdiction, but to create this new mechanism which has not previously 
existed with powers that have never been granted so that a political 
circus can occur, and innuendo and accusations can be hurled against 
the President as we have heard on this Senate floor in the last few 
days.
  Reference is made to ``four verified attempts on a person's life.'' 
Reference is made to ``money laundering.'' Reference is made to all 
kinds of lurid matter that have nothing to do with President Clinton 
but are raised in the debate and tossed out there in an effort to 
create by innuendo the suggestion that somehow the President has 
something to do with this when in fact there is no evidence, no 
substantiation, no basis for making such accusations.
  That is why they want the independent power in this committee, and 
that is why that power should not exist. We ought to have an inquiry. 
It ought to be responsible. It ought to be consistent with the 
practices and procedures of the Senate and the legislative processes of 
the Senate. It ought to concentrate in this first phase on the first 
phase completed by the special counsel. That is what the Senate voted 
for 98 to zero in March. And when the special counsel completes the 
rest of his investigation, then there ought to be hearings on the rest 
of the subject matters as well. And the best evidence that will occur 
is that the very people now protesting it will not occur are the same 
people who protested that these first hearings would not occur. Proven 
wrong once they make the same argument and will be proven wrong again 
because we are going to proceed with this matter, and we are going to 
do it in a responsible and a thoughtful way.
  I want finally to repeat what I have said before. The special counsel 
was appointed at the request of Republican Senators. The special 
counsel is himself a Republican, a lifelong Republican. His appointment 
was praised by our Republican colleagues, including the Senator from 
New York, who stated that he is a man of integrity, a man of 
experience. That special counsel has now asked this Senate in writing 
and orally not to take actions which will undermine his investigation. 
And I believe we ought to honor that request. I am confident that if 
there is wrongdoing, he will find it, he will prosecute it, and the 
persons involved will be punished.
  But if we now take actions which undermine that investigation, it is 
a course which we will later regret. It is not the responsible course 
of action. It is the political course of action. It is not the right 
course of action. It is the partisan course of action. And it is ironic 
that after publicly urging the appointment of a special counsel, our 
Republican colleagues within 5 minutes after his appointment reversed 
course again and began clamoring for an investigation even though he 
requested in writing and personally that no hearings occur which might 
undermine his investigation.
  So the issue here is--and it is a very simple one before the Senate--
are we going to have a serious, responsible inquiry by the Congress, 
including public hearings, or are we going to have a political circus? 
I urge my colleagues to vote for a serious, responsible inquiry and not 
to vote for a political circus.
  Mr. LOTT. Will the distinguished majority leader yield for a 
question?
  Mr. MITCHELL. I certainly will.
  Mr. LOTT. I listened very carefully. As I understand it, the 
Senator's resolution says that this all would terminate at the end of 
the year, the end of this Congress. If that is true, how and when would 
the second set of hearings which the Senator has assured us we would 
have occur? If this round under his resolution does not begin until 
July 30, or perhaps earlier but not later than July 30, which I believe 
is a Friday, that would go, I am sure, until we go out on the August 
recess. Then when we come back, we only have 1 month before we would go 
out for the election. When would this next round of hearings occur?
  Mr. MITCHELL. As soon as the special counsel's investigation of the 
remaining phase is completed, we will have the hearings on the 
remaining phases. And I would point out to my colleague, when he talks 
about the amount of time, when we debated the resolution on the Iran-
Contra matter, the position of the Republican Senators was that that 
investigation should occur in its entirety in 2 weeks.
  They wanted a time limit of 2 weeks on the entire investigation. Now 
my colleague is saying that 6 months is not long enough for this 
limited debate. I think that demonstrates what is at issue here.
  Mr. LOTT. In other words, we would have to have the second phase in 
September. Is that correct?
  Mr. MITCHELL. If the special counsel's investigation of the remaining 
phase is completed, I believe we should have the hearings thereafter in 
a manner consistent with this resolution; that is to say, within 30 
days after that investigation is completed.
  Mr. LOTT. But all of this would expire at the end of this year under 
that resolution. Is that correct?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Then there will be another resolution whenever he 
completes his investigation. That is the very purpose. Are we going to 
act in a way that undermines the special counsel's investigation, or 
are we going to act in a manner that does not undermine it and is 
consistent with the Senate resolution previously voted 98-0?
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on amendment No. 1776, offered by the majority leader, Mr. 
Mitchell. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and 
the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] 
is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lieberman). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 137 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--43

     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Hatfield
       
  So, the amendment (No. 1776) was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Dole-D'Amato 
resolution. I view it as a necessary measure to end the delays which 
have thus far kept the Senate from exercising its constitutional 
responsibility to investigate the Whitewater affair.
  The majority leader has characterized these efforts as ``raw partisan 
politics.'' But I would argue that those very strong words much better 
describe the efforts by partisans on the other side of the aisle who 
have to this date prevented the establishment of any guidelines or 
timetable for hearings which we approved 98-0 nearly 3 months ago.
  Mr. President, I understand that many Democrats say they ``want the 
truth to be told'' and agree with the notion that we ought to have 
hearings. We voted 90-0 in this Chamber to hold hearings. But I am 
beginning to wonder how seriously that vote was taken by many of my 
colleagues. It is one thing to say you are in favor of hearings, and 
quite another to help establish a process to make them a reality.
  The appointment of a special counsel to investigate the Whitewater 
controversy received bipartisan support. We have been careful in 
crafting this amendment to ensure that there will be proper 
consultation and coordination with the special counsel. The hearing 
need not inhibit his investigation nor jeopardize his findings in any 
way. It will, however, permit Congress to properly do its job and to 
meet its oversight responsibilities.
  What I find truly puzzling is that during those ``ugly dark days'' of 
the Reagan-Bush years, Congress held 25 hearings on alleged wrongdoing. 
Most of those hearings were conducted with the full support of both 
Republicans and Democrats. For 6 of those years, indeed, Republicans 
controlled this Chamber.
  Yet the majority leader calls the effort to hold hearings on 
Whitewater ``raw partisan politics.'' I am under no illusion that 
politics does not so often play a part in how things are done in this 
body. However, conducting hearings on Whitewater, like oversight 
hearings in other areas, is the nature of our job here. Politics need 
not have reared its head in this debate.
  In 1986 and 1987, both Republicans and Democrats called for a select 
committee to investigate Iran-Contra. Republicans and Democrats at that 
time were able to put party differences aside and we agreed that it was 
in the best interest of the American people to conduct hearings. 
Finding out the truth was the only thing that mattered.
  Unfortunately, it seems that many Democrats have decided that 
protecting a President of the same party has a higher priority. These 
are many of the very same Democrats who supported numerous 
congressional hearings between 1981 and 1992. So please spare us all 
the prattle, babble and patronizing riffle about how Republicans are 
working with only one motive, that being politics. The sudden change of 
heart among Democrats is proof enough that the shoe fits the other foot 
much more comfortably.
  Mr. President, Republicans have been asking for hearings since the 
snow-filled, icy-cold days of January, and we are now well into the hot 
and humid days of June. Today, we still do not have even the simplest 
explanations of the Whitewater matter.
  In the 1992 elections, the Clinton campaign stoked voter outrage over 
the status quo. We all remember the dominating themes of ``change'' and 
``reform.''
  Many people thought if Bill Clinton were elected, our tomorrows would 
be filled with hope and change and reform. If this blatant exercise in 
foot-dragging is the ``reform'' that we are likely to continue to see 
during the rest of the administration, then the American people will 
once again experience disillusionment over the ever widening gap 
between rhetoric and reality.
  For those who say that ``Whitewater is a distraction from the real 
issues,'' think again. This may be a very real issue. We need to know 
more about what laws may have been violated by those in the highest 
levels of power in our country.
  we must do our jobs as Republicans and Democrats in Congress with the 
same fortitude that we did during the Reagan and Bush years. We must 
never be selective in our judgment and must always strive to find the 
truth--no matter who may be resident in the White House. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Dole-D'Amato amendment.


                     Amendment No. 1775, as Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on amendment No. 1775, as amended.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I inquire of my colleague from New York 
whether it would be agreeable to voice vote the next amendment, since 
it would be a vote on the identical matter on which we just voted.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I think we can voice vote it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There being no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 1775, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 1775) as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York, [Mr. D'Amato].


                           Amendment No. 1778

   (Purpose: To authorize hearings on the operations, solvency, and 
 regulation of Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association, including 
 the alleged use of federally insured funds as campaign contributions)

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1778.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs shall 
     conduct an investigation into, study of, and hearings on, all 
     matters which have any tendency to reveal the full facts 
     about the operations, solvency, and regulation of Madison 
     Guaranty Savings and Loan Association, including the alleged 
     use of federally insured funds as campaign contributions. The 
     term ``Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association'' 
     includes any subsidiary company, affiliated company, or 
     business owned or controlled, in whole or in part, by Madison 
     Guaranty Savings and Loan Association, its officers, 
     directors, or principal shareholders.

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                amendment no. 1779 to amendment no. 1778

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Mr. Mitchell] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1779 to amendment 1778,

  The amendment is as follows:

       In lieu of the matter proposed insert the following:
       (1) Additional hearings in the fulfillment of the Senate's 
     constitutional oversight role, additional hearings on the 
     matters identified in the resolution passed by the Senate by 
     a vote of 98-0 on March 17, 1994 should be authorized as 
     appropriate under, and in accordance with, the provisions of 
     that resolution.
       (2) Any additional hearings should be structured and 
     sequenced in such a manner that in the judgement of the two 
     Leaders they would not interfere with the ongoing 
     investigation of Special Counsel Robert B. Fiske, Jr.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may be allowed to 
address the Senate as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________