[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. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senate majority 
leader.


         Amendment No. 1779, As Modified, to Amendment No. 1778

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, is it in order for me to modify my 
amendment at this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator retains the right to modify his 
amendment.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I notify my colleague that it is merely 
a typographical change, an insertion of a colon and capitalization of a 
letter.
  I ask that my amendment to be modified to insert a colon after the 
word ``hearings'' and then capitalize the following word, ``in.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment will 
be so modified.
  The amendment, with its modification, 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 judgment of the two 
     Leaders they would not interfere with the ongoing 
     investigation of Special Counsel Robert B. Fiske, Jr.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I have been advised by the distinguished 
Senator from New York that he and his colleagues are agreeable to 
having a vote on this amendment at 4:15 p.m. today.
  I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the vote on my amendment 
occur at 4:15 p.m. today; that the time between now and then be equally 
divided, under the control of Senator D'Amato and myself, and that 
following the disposition of that amendment, the Senate proceed, 
without any intervening action or debate, to dispose of the underlying 
D'Amato amendment, to which my amendment has been offered as a second-
degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I now 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. Who yields time?
  Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen].
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I had not intended to take the floor this 
afternoon to discuss this matter, but I could not help but respond when 
my friend and colleague from Maine pointed out during the debate on 
Iran-Contra that the Republicans wanted the hearings concluded within 2 
weeks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will withhold. The Chair 
presumes the Senator from Maine is speaking on the time controlled by 
the Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Yes. I yield him such time as my colleague needs.
  Mr. COHEN. And the Chair's question did not diminish that time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not at all.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, my colleague from Maine suggested that you 
can tell how political this really is by looking back at the Iran-
Contra investigation and seeing that Republicans wanted the hearings 
concluded in 2 weeks. Let me say for the Record that that was never my 
position.
  I did not believe that fair hearings could be concluded in 2 weeks. 
Indeed, I did not think they could be concluded in several months. But 
I might point out that the majority of the Democrats wanted no time 
limitation whatsoever. So if one is going to point political fingers 
back and forth across the aisle, you could say that the Democrats were 
interested only in embarrassing President Reagan by keeping the 
hearings going as long as possible with no limitation on time. As 
happens in most of these cases, a compromise was struck in which we 
agreed that we would try to move forward as quickly as possible and 
conclude the investigation within a period of roughly 9 months.
  I do not think it behooves any of us to point at the other side and 
say, you see, here is another example of how political this is because 
they wanted a short timeframe, because on the other side the Democrats 
wanted none whatsoever.
  I would also point to the Iran-Contra Committee as an example of 
perhaps the way this matter should be approached; namely, to set up a 
small select committee with its members chosen on a selective basis 
with jurisdiction of their committees involved. That is precisely what 
was involved in Iran-Contra. We had a situation with overlapping 
committee jurisdiction. The select committee was put together to 
resolve that dispute so that we would not undertake a sequence of 
hearings. I would like to come back to the theme of whether principle 
or politics is involved. I think it is a measure of both, and I think 
it applies to both parties. It is important that Republicans talk about 
the double standard that exists and that has existed for some time. The 
number of investigations conducted during the entire Reagan-Bush 
period, some 12 years, has been talked about at some length. I believe 
that the Democrats would call for an investigation at the drop of a Dow 
Jones point. Those investigations were conducted, the hearings were 
held, the witnesses were called, and the public was exposed to the 
issues involved. It seems that if you have a Republican President in 
the White House, you attack him, raise allegations, level charges--
false charges. It does not matter; whatever it takes, keep on 
attacking--October Surprise, whatever the charge may be. And then when 
you have a Democrat in the White House, the policy seems to be 
stonewall--deny, delay, charge the Republicans with partisanship. This 
seems to be the tactic that is currently underway.

  The reason that the Republicans asked for a special counsel is not 
because they wanted a special counsel. That is the irony. The 
Republicans finally asked for a special counsel because the majority 
would not allow hearings. No matter what the allegations, no matter 
what they involved, no matter what the committee jurisdiction, the 
answer was no hearings, period. It was only after there were a series 
of some rather embarrassing revelations and questions about whether the 
Justice Department was being used by the White House in a way that was 
compromising their independence that, finally, after all the 
revelations, they said OK, you Republicans can finally have a special 
counsel.
  I disagreed with that decision. I did not think there should have 
been a special counsel appointed in the first instance. I did not 
believe the allegations rose to that level which required the 
appointment of a special counsel, or independent counsel.
  I might say that I am more of a solitary voice over here because I 
was the one who urged the Republican minority to continue the 
Independent Counsel Act over the objection of my colleagues. I recall 
standing in the well saying that we would come to rue the day that we 
allowed this act to expire because there is going to be a Democrat in 
the White House at some point and we may very well be called upon to 
request the appointment of a special counsel.
  Nevertheless, I did not want to see a special counsel appointed under 
those circumstances. It was an act of desperation on the part of the 
Republicans. And, again, I think it was a mistake to raise the 
allegations to the level of a criminal investigation, but the fact is 
that it was the only option available at that time.
  Since the appointment of the special counsel, there have been a 
number of other allegations. Frankly, I have my doubts about a number 
of them in terms of their import or consequence. But, nonetheless, I 
think that both the majority and the minority know that there is no 
substitute for public hearings. That is the only way the public really 
comes to understand the nature of the allegations, can see for 
themselves the truth or falsity of them, can see for themselves the 
sincerity or the political motivation of the individuals conducting 
those hearings. The camera tells the public that very clearly.
  Notwithstanding the allegations made here, that somehow we have to 
correct the mistakes made in Iran-Contra, I do not believe it was a 
mistake to hold public hearings on Iran-Contra. And do not think it was 
a mistake to have granted immunity to Colonel North and Admiral 
Poindexter. At that time it was far more important to get their stories 
out.
  I know the majority leader disagreed. He did not think we should have 
granted immunity. He felt that Colonel North and Admiral Poindexter 
wanted to testify, that they would have testified, and that we should 
not have caved in as easily as we did. That was his view then and I 
think it was a legitimate view. Nevertheless, I do not believe it was a 
mistake to get as much of the testimony as we did. And much of the 7 
years of investigation by Mr. Walsh did not contradict the work of the 
committee or added much to it.
  My problem with what we are doing today is that we seem to be setting 
a precedent that from the moment an independent counsel is appointed, 
Congress is hamstrung and will have to go through this sort of 
procedure to determine whether we will ever have a congressional 
hearing. We are putting ourselves in the position of having a hearing 
only if the special counsel or independent counsel agrees to it. That 
is a very dangerous precedent for this body.
  We should not put ourselves in the position of saying OK, you may 
have congressional hearings but only if the special counsel extracts a 
promise from you not to grant immunity under any circumstances. To do 
so is to give up a very serious responsibility on the part of this 
institution.
  So I have problems not only with the majority leader's proposal but 
also with that of my colleague from New York.
  As I said the other day, we ought to proceed on the basis of comity, 
of recognizing there are areas that we should not go into. That has 
been done on many, many occasions with a number of committees, 
particularly on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, where we 
have these informal understandings. But to structure the hearings in a 
way in which we say you can ask here but not here is going to lead to a 
good deal of contention, confusion, and combativeness. Ultimately it is 
going to lead to a degradation of the congressional process itself.
  I would hope that some middle ground can be found between the 
majority leader's proposal and the one offered by this side. Some 
politics are involved, but it is involved on both sides. I think the 
majority leader has an obligation to defend the President, to defend 
the administration. That is his job, and he is doing a very good job. 
But we also have an obligation over here. It is not fair to say, well, 
you are zigging and you are zagging, you are flipping and you are 
flopping, because it is pure politics on your side. I have never 
approached any congressional hearing on the basis of trying to exploit 
an issue to embarrass the President. I do not want to try to embarrass 
President Clinton or Mrs. Clinton. I have said time and time again that 
I am not sure that when the hearings are all over they will prove to 
have been justified, or whether they will solidify in the minds of the 
American people whether there was wrongdoing. But it is important that 
the hearings be held and that they be held as quickly as possible. I do 
not contemplate this matter going well into the next year.
  I certainly do not think that you can conduct a hearing within a 
couple of weeks. As my colleague from Maine pointed out, some 
Republicans--not all of them--wanted the Iran-Contra hearings confined 
to 2 weeks. And the response of the majority was no time limit 
whatsoever.
  Ultimately, we had to compromise on a period of 9 months. That was 
the way the Iran-Contra Committee was structured. It was a good model 
then and it is a good model today.
  I hope that in order to avoid a series of what appear to be purely 
partisan votes, with the Democrats controlling the majority, that we 
might find some changes that could be made to accommodate the interests 
of the minority.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I hope we can build on the remarks of my 
distinguished colleague from Maine as it relates to again coming forth 
with a structure that will be credible to this institution and to the 
work we are supposed to do. I think we can do it. I know an effort has 
been made. We have not been able to come to that agreement, but I do 
not think we are that far apart. I do not say we have to take my 
methodology. It seems to me that we are pretty close to it.
  Rather than to continue and insist on a way of legislative amendments 
that will be defeated but will be attempted to make the point, I hope 
that we can begin that process sooner rather than later.
  Mr. President, the fundamental question which was posed in my 
underlying amendment was whether Congress should find out the cause of 
Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan--which was a federally insured savings 
and loan--costing the taxpayers $67 million. Is that a legitimate 
subject for oversight? I believe it is. I believe the American people 
deserve to know if taxpayers' funds were used for improper purposes. 
After all, they were taxpayers' funds. They should find out where the 
money went. Did it go into Whitewater? Did it go into campaign 
activities? That is the purpose of the underlying amendment.
  The majority leader's amendment would prohibit Congress from 
examining the causes of Madison's failure until the independent counsel 
basically said it is OK for Congress to examine the issue. I think 
Senator Cohen has argued quite eloquently as to the, I think, poor 
policy that would set--that this Congress delegate its constitutional 
oversight role to an employee of the Justice Department.
  Did Congress give the independent counsel a right to veto 
congressional oversight activities? Do we want to do that? I think that 
would be a mistake.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has 12 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, has the Senator from New York used all 
of his time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York has used all of his 
time plus some.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Would the Senator from New York like a couple of 
additional minutes from my time? I indicated earlier I would give him 
some of my time. I am prepared to offer him 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I thank the leader.
  Let me state, using that 2 or 3 minutes, that I hope we can set up 
the process which I think Senator Cohen suggested in his remarks, and 
by which I have indicated we could move the process forward. I know 
that we have worked hard at it. The majority leader and the minority 
leader have worked. And I think it is worthwhile pursuing this with all 
the vigor possible. We have some bright staff members who know some of 
the concerns. I think and hope we can do that.
  I do not want to see us in a situation where Congress has to ask the 
permission of the special counsel, or wait for him to say yes, it is OK 
to start. I think we can do it with comity.
  I notice again the majority leader speaks to the issue of whether or 
not we would grant immunity, and zigging and zagging. We wrote out an 
amendment looking to the March 17 resolution where it said that no one 
who is called to testify would be granted immunity under title 18 over 
the objection of the special counsel.
  Our wording was just slightly different, but the same thing. We said 
to request a grant of immunity under title 18, it would have to be 
approved by the independent counsel.
  So I say that in the way of explanation. I do not think we are trying 
to zig and zag on this. I think there are some honest differences of 
opinion. I do not think they are all so partisan. But I hope that we 
can get about setting up the structure in a committee that we can all 
be proud of.
  I thank the leader for granting me additional time.
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, let me deal first with the subject of 
immunity, as the Senator himself raised.
  On March 9, 1994, Special Counsel Robert Fiske met with Senator 
D'Amato and Senator Cohen. After the meeting, they came out of that 
press conference. Here were their statements.
  Senator D'Amato said:

       We have made clear to Mr. Fiske that under no circumstances 
     do we intend to grant immunity.

  Senator Cohen said, among other things:

       There will be no immunity granted to witnesses.

  Mr. Fiske said:

       I have been assured that immunity will not be granted to 
     any witness in any of these investigations.

  Those are the statements on March 9. Now, Senator D'Amato has spent a 
lot of time here arguing about why they should have the right to grant 
immunity under certain circumstances, such as not over the objection of 
Mr. Fiske. But the statement on March 9 could not be any more clear:

       Under no circumstances do we intend to grant immunity.

  My understanding of the English language is ``under no 
circumstances'' does not mean ``under some circumstances.'' It means 
``under no circumstances.'' That is the point I have made here all 
along. I do not think there is any consistent principle behind this 
effort.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Yes.
  Mr. D'AMATO. That statement was made on March 7.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I had March 9. But if it is March 7, I stand corrected.
  Mr. D'AMATO. On March 17, we voted 98-0, all of us, and the two 
leaders voted. Section C of the resolution contains the language that 
no witness who testifies in these hearings ``shall be granted immunity 
over the objection of special counsel.''
  So it was in that light that I drafted an amendment to encompass the 
will of the majority, which was voted on 98 to nothing. I think it 
really meets the intent that we were not going to go out and grant 
immunity. Whether we said no immunity or whether we said we will not do 
it without permission of the special counsel seems to me to almost be 
splitting hairs. But certainly, on the 17th, this body made it clear by 
saying we will not grant immunity unless or over the objection of 
special counsel.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I understand that. I agree with that. I just say that 
my good friend and colleague--and he is really my good friend, Senator 
Cohen, my colleague from Maine--has just said he does not agree.
  Mr. President, if I might address the immediate amendment, this is 
really the same issue that was just voted on in the broader resolution. 
This is the scope of the investigation. I want to make clear again, so 
there can be no misunderstanding, the Senate voted 98 to nothing to 
have hearings ``structured and sequenced in such a manner that they 
would not interfere with the ongoing investigation of the special 
counsel.''
  The resolution the Senate has just approved does just that. It is 
consistent with the special counsel's request, and with the vote of the 
Senate on March 17.
  I have also made clear that we fully, explicitly, and categorically 
will have hearings on the remaining matters after the special counsel 
completes his investigation of the remaining matters.
  What our colleagues are trying to do is to put the whole thing into 
this resolution now in a manner that I believe is inconsistent and 
contradicts the action of the Senate taken in March by a vote of 98-0.
  Mr. President, let me describe once again why this issue of immunity 
is important. Prior to Iran-Contra, the legal issue of the subsequent 
criminal prosecution of a person who had testified before a 
congressional committee under a grant of immunity was governed by a 
case known as the Kastigar case. He was the person involved. And in the 
Kastigar case, the Supreme Court set out a standard which a prosecutor 
would have to meet in order to prosecute a person for actions arising 
out of acts which are also the subject of testimony under a grant of 
immunity before a congressional hearing. The test was a difficult one, 
but it could be done. In the Iran-Contra case, former Marine Colonel 
Oliver North testified before Congress under a grant of immunity. As 
Senator Cohen rightly said, we had a reasonable difference of opinion. 
I did not favor the granting of immunity, but it was granted. He 
testified, and he then was indicted on felony charges, tried, and 
convicted of three felonies. He then appealed the convictions, and the 
court of appeals agreed with Colonel North that he could not have been 
prosecuted because of his prior testimony to Congress under a grant of 
immunity. And in that case, North versus United States, the court of 
appeals here set a new and much higher standard to be met by 
prosecutors in such circumstances, the practical effect of which, 
according to special counsel in the Iran-Contra case and other 
commentators, is that both cannot now happen. Effectively, Congress 
must choose. We must choose whether to have congressional hearings and 
have witnesses testify under a grant of immunity, or we must choose to 
let the investigation by a prosecutor occur to see if wrongdoing 
happened and, if it did, to prosecute and punish it.

  So we are now operating under a law that is different from what it 
has ever been and has been different since 1990 when the court of 
appeals decided Colonel North's case. The irony of this debate is that 
our Republican colleagues, who were so insistent on the appointment of 
a special counsel--a special counsel, who is himself a lifelong 
Republican and whose appointment was praised by Republican Senators--
are now deriding the special counsel and demanding that the Senate act 
in a way that will in fact undermine the special counsel's 
investigation, in effect, saying that the Senate should make a choice 
of having the hearings even if it undermines the subsequent 
investigation.
  Mr. President, what we are trying to do, and what my resolution does, 
is to say that we can do them both, provided we do them in a reasonable 
and orderly way that does not grant immunity, and that does not 
undermine the special counsel's investigation. The fact of the matter 
is--and I repeat this as a former prosecutor and former Federal judge--
if there has been wrongdoing, those who committed the wrongdoing, 
should be prosecuted and punished. And the way to do that is to let the 
special counsel do his job. Not a single Member of this Senate has 
challenged the integrity or ability of the special counsel. He is, I 
repeat, a lifelong Republican, appointed at the request of Republicans 
and praised by Republicans.
  Now we have the irony of Republican Senators coming in and proposing 
a process which that special counsel has warned against and which would 
undermine the very investigation that our colleagues requested. That is 
why I have said it is political, and that is why I believe it is 
political. What we should do is vote for the amendment that I have 
proposed, which is consistent with the previous action of the Senate 
just a short time ago, and which will permit the Senate to meet its 
legal and constitutional obligations to conduct a thorough, careful, 
reasonable investigation in a manner that does not undermine the 
special counsel's investigation and yet also meets our responsibilities 
and is consistent both with the resolution approved in the Senate by a 
vote of 98-0 in March and with the repeated requests of the special 
counsel that the Senate not take any action to undermine his ongoing 
investigation.
  Mr. President, I see that my time is up.
  I yield the floor, and we are prepared to vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 1779 
offered by the majority leader.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announced that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. 
Coverdell] is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 138 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
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     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

       
     Coverdell
       
  So the amendment (No. 1779), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 1778, As Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on agreeing to amendment No. 1778, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 1778), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from New York has 
an amendment he is going to offer, and I am going to offer a second-
degree amendment to that.


                           Amendment No. 1780

(Purpose: To authorize hearings on the pursuit by the Resolution Trust 
   Corporation of civil causes of action against potentially liable 
  parties associated with Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association)

  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 legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1780.

  Mr. MITCHELL. 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 pursuit by the Resolution Trust Corporation of 
     civil causes of action against potentially liable parties 
     associated with Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan 
     Association. 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.


                amendment no. 1781 to amendment no. 1780

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
asked that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Mr. Mitchell] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1781 to amendment No. 1780.

  Mr. MITCHELL. 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:

       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.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, by a coincidence unrelated to this bill, 
a number of Members of the Senate have an important commitment this 
evening that I would like to accommodate and, therefore, I am going to 
momentarily ask unanimous consent that there be a vote on this 
amendment at 5 p.m. to accommodate our colleagues. That would be the 
last vote today.
  However, I do want to say that I am advised that there will be a 
number of similar amendments offered to the measure and, in that event, 
we will be in session very late tomorrow evening and on Thursday 
evening and all day Friday, if necessary. We have to complete action on 
this bill because it is very important to every State which has an 
airport, which I assume to be every State.
  In addition, we want to take up and pass this week the first of the 
appropriations bills that must be enacted, and there are some 
nominations which have been pending on which we hope to obtain final 
action.
  So, as is our practice to accommodate Senators when they have a 
commitment of the type that exists this evening, we will do so. But 
that means that Senators should be prepared for a very lengthy session 
tomorrow, Thursday, and all day Friday unless we are able to move along 
more promptly to get action on this and the other measures to which I 
referred.
  Mr. President, is it agreeable to the Senator now, in accordance with 
our previous discussion, that the vote on this amendment occur at 5 
p.m.?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Yes.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on my amendment 
now pending occur at 5 p.m. today; that the time between now and then 
be equally divided----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the majority leader yield? There will be 
order in the Chamber. There will be order in the Chamber.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, that the time between now and 5 p.m. be 
for debate on both the second-degree amendment which I have offered and 
the first-degree amendment by the Senator from New York, equally 
divided and under the control of the Senator from New York and myself; 
that following this vote, the underlying D'Amato amendment be disposed 
of without any intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I repeat, the upcoming vote--if I might 
inquire of the Senator from New York, as we have on the previous two 
votes, I assume it will be acceptable to the Senator that, in the event 
my amendment is adopted, we can voice vote the underlying amendment as 
amended?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Absolutely.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Therefore, Mr. President, I repeat the upcoming vote at 
5 p.m. will be the last vote today. I thank my colleague for his 
cooperation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, this amendment, the underlying amendment, 
which I submitted and which the leader added his amendment to--let me 
explain to you what my amendment would do. It would expand the scope of 
the investigation to include--that is hearings--to include the pursuit 
of the Resolution Trust Corporation as it relates to those civil causes 
of action against potentially liable parties associated with Madison 
Guaranty Savings & Loan Association. This amendment would authorize the 
committee to investigation whether Federal banking laws or regulations 
were violated in connection with the failure of Madison Guaranty and 
whether these potential violations have been pursued by the RTC.
  Has the RTC been vigorously pursuing potential civil actions to 
recover funds from wrongdoers who contributed to the failure of 
Madison? What has caused the RTC's considerable delay in completing its 
investigation into the failure of Madison? These are critical questions 
that must be addressed. I think congressional hearings are absolutely 
essential.
  However, the amendment which my distinguished colleague has offered 
today would, once again, prevent us from undertaking this until the 
investigation of this area has been completed by Mr. Fiske. The 
question is, How long do we wait? When will this occur? Will it be 
completed next week? This next month? Next year? Or longer?
  Are we really going to say that Congress has now delegated its 
oversight and investigatory responsibilities, whether it be of the 
Madison--and if, by the way, this is a precedent, will this be a 
precedent for all oversight hearings where special counsel is 
appointed, that we wait until special counsel has completed a 
particular phase? Who advises us? Are we going to work in comity, as we 
have indicated in our resolution of March 17? Or are we going to simply 
abdicate and say that, no, we will not undertake hearings until the 
special counsel has signaled the all clear?
  I make note that when we talked to the special counsel back in early 
March, we talked about cooperating. We talked about advising him as to 
witnesses that would be subpoenaed and agreeing not to subpoena those 
that he would want to examine first. It was with that kind of approach 
that we went forward.
  I do not believe that, by going into a situation where we say that 
any additional hearings should be structured and sequenced in such a 
manner that in the judgment of the two leaders they would not interfere 
with the ongoing investigation--with all due deference to the two 
leaders, it would seem to me that the committee, in cooperation, 
working on behalf of the entire Congress, would be making those 
determinations. It just seems to me that now we are going to be giving 
to--and by the way, when I spoke to the special counsel, he indicated 
to me that he would prefer there be no hearings. But he understood that 
Congress had its role and its responsibility. I am suggesting now, at 
this point in time, we are utilizing the fact that there has been 
special counsel as a shield, as a shield against going forward. I think 
that is an abdication of our responsibility.
  So I hope once again--I have no illusions about the outcome of this 
vote--but I certainly hope that sooner rather than later we could 
structure a compromise that would permit the committee to do its work 
in a manner which would not interfere with the special counsel's work 
but would give us the ability to start moving and undertaking these 
hearings and whatever investigations they might lead to.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, about the only thing I agree with in my 
colleague's remarks is that we know the outcome of the vote. That is 
because we are voting on the same thing for the third time. We have 
already voted on this twice before and now we are voting for the third 
time. Even in the Senate, I think there is a reasonable degree of 
predictability that is possible, when you vote on the same thing over 
and over again, you are going to have the same outcome. This is the 
same issue. We debated it. We voted it earlier. The proposal was 
rejected.
  We then revoted it a second time. The proposal was rejected. We are 
now going to revote it a third time, and I suppose there is no limit to 
the number of times we can vote on the same issue. But I believe it is 
important that Senators and the American people understand what is 
involved here.
  Our Republican colleagues loudly insisted on the appointment of a 
special counsel to investigate this matter. A special counsel was 
appointed. He is himself a Republican, a lifelong Republican of great 
ability and experience and character. His appointment was applauded by 
Republican Senators.
  That special counsel has requested that the Congress not conduct 
hearings which would interfere with or undermine his investigation. 
Five minutes after that special counsel was appointed, at the request 
of the Republican Senators, and himself a Republican, our Republican 
colleagues began to ask for precisely the type of investigation that 
would undermine his investigation. So that is where we are.
  Alternately, the Senator from New York has said we should not be 
subject to the special counsel, and then a few minutes later said, but 
we ought to work in cooperation with the special counsel. Once again, 
we are seeing inconsistent arguments and zigging and zagging and 
flipping and flopping by our colleagues because there is not a 
consistent principle here.
  The motivation is to attack the President and Mrs. Clinton. The issue 
before the Senate on this vote is exactly the issue that was before the 
Senate on the two previous votes. The resolution which I have offered 
will enable the Senate to meet its constitutional obligations in a 
serious and responsible way, consistent with the resolution passed by 
the Senate in March by a vote of 98 to 0, consistent with the repeated 
requests of the special counsel, both orally and in writing.
  Alternatively--the alternative offered by our colleagues--is for a 
political circus. It is for an inquiry that would undermine the special 
counsel's investigation, an inquiry that is inconsistent with the 
resolutions passed by the Senate by a vote of 98 to 0; an inquiry that 
would, in effect, create a political circus. That is the issue. It has 
been the issue all long.
  I have said this many times. I want to repeat it so there can be no 
misunderstanding. We are going to have hearings on all of the matters 
involved, and we are going to have hearings at a time and under a 
structure that does not undermine or interfere with the special 
counsel's investigation. That commitment is firm, and that is what we 
will do if we proceed in the manner suggested by the amendment which I 
have offered.
  We have a committee of the Senate. It has appropriate jurisdiction. 
It is where we have always conducted the matters relevant to these 
amendments. Our colleagues come in with the request for a completely 
new structure, one that does not exist and ask for legal authority that 
is without precedent in the more than 200-year history of the Senate. I 
have asked our colleagues who authored the amendment, who support the 
amendment; I have asked staff; I have asked everyone: Has there ever 
been a situation where the powers created under the Republican 
resolution existed in the past? And the answer is no; no precedent for 
it. We have never had that situation.
  And so, rather than conducting the business of the Senate in an 
orderly, responsible way in accordance with the jurisdiction of the 
Senate, with the practices of the Senate, with the procedures of the 
Senate, our colleagues want some wholly new enterprise with powers that 
have previously not existed.
  Democrats have been in the minority before. Republicans are in the 
minority now. Never has the minority been granted the powers--ever--
that our colleagues seek in their resolution.
  So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues again--this has gotten to be 
quite repetitious because the subject is repetitious--that we should 
vote for the amendment which I have offered and reject the amendment of 
my colleague from New York, because we ought to proceed to do this in a 
serious and responsible and orderly way that permits the Congress to 
meet its constitutional obligations and permits the special counsel to 
conduct his investigation so that, in the end, if there is, in fact, 
any wrongdoing, those who committed the wrongdoing should be prosecuted 
and punished.
  That is what we ought to be thinking about here, and I believe the 
best way to do it is to proceed as I have suggested.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes 35 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to direct a 
question to the majority leader without it being charged.
  It is my understanding he wants now to have the vote at 5:15 instead 
of 5 p.m.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I have just been asked by the Finance 
Committee, which is now in a meeting on health care, if I would 
postpone the vote to 5:15. I asked them to check with Senator Dole, and 
I am just advised he is agreeable to that and I will, therefore, now 
put a request to have the vote at 5:15, with the additional 15 minutes 
equally divided.
  Mr. WALLOP. I thank the Senator. That is what I was inquiring about, 
actually.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
vote scheduled under the previous order to occur at 5 p.m. in fact be 
held at 5:15, with the additional 15 minutes to be equally divided 
between the Senator from New York and myself, and that all other terms 
of the unanimous-consent agreement remain in force.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, therefore, I ask my colleague to yield me 
5 minutes.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Yes; certainly.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I am bewildered by the resistance of the 
majority party to holding hearings of any substance and meaning. If you 
look at the majority leader's second-degree amendment, it basically 
just says that the Congress of the United States is the tool of the 
special prosecutor. We are to abide by and live by whatever judgments 
he makes, and we are devoid of the ability and the responsibility of 
making our own.
  I am a little distracted, and I am glad the majority leader is here 
because last week there was an argument as to what the Senate 
resolution, which we passed 98 to 0 on March 17, stated. And with 
respect to the issue of granting immunity, subsection (c) of that 
resolution stated in its entirety:

       No witness called to testify at these hearings shall be 
     granted immunity under section 6002 and section 6005 of 
     title 18, United States Code, over the objection of 
     Special Counsel Robert B. Fiske.

  Then, on Thursday afternoon, the majority leader, on the floor of the 
Senate, made this statement in its entirety:

       Mr. President, the Senator--

  From New York--

     has evidently forgotten that on March 17 of this year, the 
     Senate voted 98-0 for a resolution which includes the 
     following statement: ``No witness called to testify at these 
     hearings shall be granted immunity.''

  Mr. President, that statement is simply not the truth. It is simply 
not complete. By deleting the last portion of the text of the 
subsection, the majority leader effectively changed its entire meaning. 
But he proceeded, again, to level the same charge, and I quote again:

       Every single Republican Senator who voted, voted for that 
     resolution. I repeat: The resolution stated as explicitly and 
     as clearly as can be stated in the English language: ``No 
     witness called to testify at these hearings shall be granted 
     immunity.''

  Once again, the majority leader deleted the operative phrase ``over 
the objections of Special Counsel Robert B. Fiske, Jr.''
  So, in an attempt to correct the impression left by the majority 
leader, the Senator from New York, a short time later, read into the 
Record the full text of the original subsection. Nevertheless, later 
that same evening, the majority leader again misrepresented the text of 
that package. He stated, and I quote again from the Record:

       Mr. President, nothing said here today exposes more clearly 
     the motive involved on the other side. In the resolution 
     approved by the Senate in March by a vote of 98-0, it stated, 
     ``No witness called to testify at these hearings shall be 
     granted immunity''--no witness shall be granted immunity. And 
     that was put in at the request of Republican colleagues.

  Mr. President, that is not the entire text of the subsection. That is 
a distortion of the resolution, and it is unfair to accuse the Senator 
from New York and the Republicans of disingenuity on the basis of a 
change that never took place. It is a misquote.
  The majority leader then went on to state the following:

       After they requested that there be no immunity, after they 
     all voted for a resolution which says explicitly, as clearly 
     and plainly as the English language can be used, ``No witness 
     called to testify at these hearings shall be granted 
     immunity,'' now today they tell us, ``Oh, well, there really 
     ought to be the power to grant immunity.'' It is a complete 
     flip-flop. It is a complete zig-zag. It is a complete 
     reversal.

  Mr. President, my point is this is simply and specifically not what 
took place, not what the Senate voted on. It is a misstatement of the 
fact.
  And now here, with this amendment, we are coming along and once again 
saying that the majority leader would have the Senate abdicate its 
role, its responsibility, to Mr. Robert B. Fiske. Somehow or another, 
it is clear that the majority party is engaging in a coverup as 
complete and specific as possibly can be contrived over the issue of 
Whitewater, Madison Guaranty, the Lasater affair, and other such 
matters.
  The public is entitled to know. And if, as is always the case stated 
downtown, there is no reason to suppose that the President and his 
people have done anything, then, Mr. President, there is no reason for 
the coverup.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. WALLOP. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). The Senator controls 9 minutes.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I yield 9 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maine, the 
majority leader, for yielding. I have not weighed into this debate in 
the past, not because I did not have strong feelings about it, not 
because I did not have a provincial interest in defending the 
President, who happens to be from my home State, not because I do not 
believe in the President, who has been a close friend of mine for 20 
years, but because the arguments have been so insufferably repetitious 
and so partisan, I just did not see much use in taking up additional 
time by adding my voice to the endless hours of debate on something 
which is obviously perceived by my friends and colleagues on the other 
side as redounding to their political benefit.
  As recently as 48 hours ago, the President and First Lady spent 2\1/
2\ hours with the independent counsel--no special favors requested, 
none granted; 2\1/2\ hours under oath; the special prosecutor being 
there because virtually every Democrat, I think every Democrat in the 
Senate, voted for the appointment of the independent counsel.
  At that time we were told by our friends on the other side of the 
aisle that this is what they wanted. They wanted an independent counsel 
to investigate these matters. They said they wanted an independent 
counsel to investigate an investment made by two people who were about 
31 and 32 years of age, respectively, a relatively small investment in 
a real estate venture which failed and which now everybody on that side 
of the aisle portrays as Armageddon. It is one of the most incredible 
things I have ever witnessed. When I think of not only what has 
happened, but what needs to happen in the Senate between now and the 
end of the year, I think about how many hours we have spent on this 
absolutely fruitless debate.
  The majority leader has made the point over and over and over again 
we are going to have hearings. And that is all the original request 
was, to have an independent counsel to investigate it. Democrats 
agreed. I voted for it. Now Democrats are also agreeing to the 
Republicans' request for a hearing, but not in a timeframe that would 
poison the well of the investigation. I do not think anybody wants to 
bring this to a conclusion and tell the American people precisely all 
there is to know about it more than the President of the United States.
  Mr. President, why do our friends on the other side of the aisle not 
point out to the American people that the deficit for next year is 
going to be $171 billion--$80 billion less than it was when Bill 
Clinton became President. And if we do our work here the way he wants 
us to do it, the deficit will still be less in 1996. Go to the American 
people and ask ``Which is more important to you, Whitewater or getting 
the deficit down? What is more important to you, getting the 
unemployment rate from 7.1 percent to 6 percent and creating more jobs 
in 1 year than George Bush created in 4 or Whitewater?'' Ask the 
American people if they want this economy to grow while interest rates 
remain steady and the inflation rate remains under control. Is that 
what you want or do you want to talk some more about Whitewater? 
Everybody here, Republican and Democrat alike, knows what the answer to 
that is.
  Madam President, I will just close with this observation. I went to 
Normandy last week. I did not serve in Normandy. I did not serve in the 
European theater. I was a Marine. My service was in the Pacific. And 
yet the war in Europe has always been a matter of acute interest to me. 
The Civil War has  been, too. But the invasion on the Normandy 
coastline where 18-, 19-, 20-year-old kids--if you were 25, you were 
one of the old men--jumped out of those troop transports baring their 
chests to German machine guns, some of them drowning because they had 
50- to 90-pound packs on their back and jumped into water over their 
heads. Normandy and the beaches was such an emotional experience for 
me. I was almost sorry I went.

  At Anzio, the President came up to me and related a story to me. He 
said, ``I was walking through the cemetery a moment ago,'' where there 
are 10,000 white crosses and Stars of David. Incidentally, this was 
before the ceremony started, and we were visiting after the ceremonies. 
He says, ``A man came up to me and said, `Mr. President, I landed here 
at Anzio with a man from Arkansas who became my best friend. We fought 
all the way from the south to the north of Italy together. And his name 
was Clayton Little.'''
  That name does not mean anything to you, but Clayton Little was in 
the legislature when I was Governor. He was in the legislature when 
Senator Pryor was Governor. And he was in the legislature when Bill 
Clinton was Governor, a wonderful man who died 2 years ago.
  And the President said, ``I had to tell this man that our mutual 
friend, Clayton Little, had died.'' The man went ahead to say, and this 
has nothing to do with the story, he said, ``You see that grave right 
over there?'' The President said, ``Yes.'' He said, ``I should be lying 
in that grave. I was going out on a patrol one night. I was a sergeant. 
He was just a private. He said, `Let me go in your place. I'm going 
stir crazy in this foxhole.' I finally said, `Go ahead.' And he went, 
and he got ambushed by the Germans. He was killed.''
  I heard story after story after story like that. And at Omaha, 10,000 
more white crosses and Stars of David. As I walked through that 
cemetery and looked down at that awesome beach where so many brave men 
gave their lives, I thought it's good that I am here because it gives 
me a good insight into how insignificant Whitewater and Paula Jones and 
all the rest of it is. In the scheme of things, it does not amount to 
very much. The point is, we have a great nation, and the people expect 
us to act like it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York has 5 minutes and 20 
seconds. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, let me say, first of all, that I find 
the remarks of my friend and colleague from Arkansas to be very moving 
as it relates to his recounting of the sacrifices and tragedies--and 
they were individual tragedies--as a nation we feel, and obviously when 
we go back to the sites of historic battles and occasions of great 
things performed by young men, heroic deeds and actions, truly in the 
totality of things one could actually say what really matters, what is 
important. I understand that.
  But I could also raise, by way of example, that if we are going to 
use that as a standard, then we never would have had an Iran-Contra 
Committee set up. We would never have had a Watergate committee set up. 
We would never have had the number of committees that have been set up 
to review, to look, and to ascertain whether or not there has been an 
abuse of power. I would say that there are certainly more potentially 
important things that we could deal with on a day-by-day basis. That is 
not the question here. There is no doubt that the question as to what 
may or may not take place in North Korea is a very important one. But 
that is not a good and sufficient reason for saying we should not then 
go forth.

  Every administration after this one could then use that as the 
rationale for saying we should not have hearings. Every administration 
from this point on could say, no, oversight should not be conducted 
when we have special counsel.
  By the way, there is a difference. I would note this. The majority 
leader has spoken about ``subject to.'' I say we are not ``subject 
to.'' We should not be subject to the special counsel or his work. We 
should be mindful of it. We should look to work with him in a 
cooperative effort as opposed to ``subject to.'' They are 
distinguishable. And it is just that point that I think we have to 
arrive at.
  Let me say this, with all due regard to the sincerity with which my 
colleagues on the other side raise the issue of the special counsel, if 
it is raised in this manner, if we say we cannot set up a methodology 
by going forward without legislation prohibiting us from going into 
relevant matters, then the special counsel appointment is just being 
used as a shield to keep us from doing what we should be doing and in a 
timely manner.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question at 
that moment?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Yes.
  Mr. WALLOP. It seems to me, as I listened to the Senator from 
Arkansas and ``beating a dead horse'' and holding a ``fruitless 
debate,'' if it is a ``dead horse'' in a ``fruitless debate,'' it is 
only because we are not allowed to get into the debate and get into the 
operation of a truly open set of hearings.
  I would say that those who fought so that we could debate, and not be 
abused for the process of doing it--and if it is insignificant--would 
my friend not admit that if it is insignificant, as the Senator from 
Arkansas said, then why not open it up and be done with it? Why not let 
us go ahead and have the hearings and be done with it? If it is 
insignificant, it will show. If it is not insignificant, people are 
entitled to know.
  Would that not be a fair assessment?
  Mr. D'AMATO. I believe it is. I agree with my colleague. I think he 
really comes to the gravamen of the issue.
  I would conclude by saying, when we talk about working with special 
counsel, I believe we can and should. But that, again, is different 
from being ``subject to.'' That means that Congress must seek 
permission from the special counsel. And if the special counsel 
dictates how and when congressional hearings will be conducted, I do 
not believe we should be making that kind of delegation. It is 
something that we will regret. It is a precedent that we have never 
followed, nor should we at this point in time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired on the pending amendment.
  The question now occurs on amendment No. 1781 offered by the majority 
leader. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 139 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
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     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

       
     Coverdell
       
  So, the amendment (No. 1781), was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on amendment No. 1780, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 1780), as amended, was agreed to.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, as I earlier indicated, there will be 
no further rollcall votes this evening.
  With respect to the schedule tomorrow, I have discussed the matter 
with the distinguished Senator from New York, and we have agreed on the 
following procedure:
  At 10 a.m. tomorrow, Senator D'Amato will offer another amendment. I 
or my designee will then offer a second-degree amendment, following the 
pattern that has developed today. And then those two amendments will be 
debated. There will be no vote prior to 11:15 a.m.
  The joint leadership has a meeting at the White House at about 10 
a.m. tomorrow. To accommodate all those involved in that meeting, there 
will not be a vote prior to 11:15, and that is why Senator D'Amato has 
agreed that the second-degree amendment may be offered by my designee 
at that time. Indeed, he graciously offered to offer the second-degree 
amendment himself. But that will not be necessary, as another Senator 
will be here as my designee managing the bill.
  So we will be back on this subject with another amendment by Senator 
D'Amato and another second-degree amendment by myself beginning at 10 
tomorrow, with no vote prior to 11:15.
  I anticipate that there should be a vote at or shortly after 11:15, 
and then we will proceed with the measure thereafter.

                          ____________________