[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 75 (Wednesday, June 15, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 15, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
       FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1994

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 10 a.m. 
having arrived and passed, the Senate will now resume consideration of 
S. 1491, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1491) to amend the Airport and Airway 
     Improvement Act of 1982 and authorize appropriations, and for 
     other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato] is 
recognized.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, yesterday on a straight party line vote, 
Senate Democrats trampled our constitutional responsibility to engage 
in meaningful congressional oversight of the executive branch of 
Government. During 12 years of Republican administrations, the Congress 
kept a bright spotlight of congressional oversight on the White House 
searching far and wide for any sign of potential wrongdoing. Well, 
yesterday, congressional Democrats voted unanimously to turn the lights 
out. Yesterday, 56 Senators abandoned a 200-year tradition of thorough 
and fair congressional oversight in favor of a new policy: See no evil, 
hear no evil, speak no evil.

  When it comes to advancing the programs of the administration, it is 
fair to expect congressional Democrats to carry the President's water. 
But when it comes to our constitutional oversight obligations, the 
American people do not want Congress to carry his Whitewater, too. Make 
no mistake about it: yesterday, 56 Senators voted to place a short 
leash on the congressional watchdog and handed it over to the 
independent counsel. Never before has Congress stepped aside and 
abandoned or postponed its constitutional oversight responsibilities 
while an independent counsel conducted an investigation.
  Never once in our history has Congress authorized an independent 
counsel, or anyone else, to dictate the scope or timing of 
congressional oversight activities--that is, never before yesterday.
  Did Congress get permission from Archibald Cox or Leon Jaworski to 
hold Watergate hearings? No. Did Congress postpone Iran-Contra hearings 
because of concerns that hearings might interfere with Lawrence Walsh's 
ongoing investigation? Absolutely not. Yet, this is exactly what Senate 
Democrats have done in the case of Whitewater.
  Yesterday, after Senate Democrats voted against my amendment for full 
and fair Whitewater oversight hearings, I began the process of giving 
our colleagues an opportunity to, at a minimum, authorize meaningful 
oversight activities. I plan to continue that process today by offering 
amendments that would provide the same tools to the Banking Committee 
that were provided to countless other oversight committees in the past.
  Under the amendment adopted yesterday, it would be impossible to 
conduct genuine oversight activities. Yesterday's amendment does not 
expressly grant authority to order Federal and State Governments to 
produce all relevant documents. Yet, this authority was given to the 
Senate select committee investigating Iran-Contra, the select committee 
to investigate Justice Department undercover activities, established in 
1982, and the select committee investigating Watergate.
  How is that? Why is that? Why was that authority necessary in those 
cases and yet explicitly deleted from yesterday's amendment? I will be 
offering an amendment asking for that same authority.
  Yesterday's amendment does not expressly provide for access to any 
relevant evidence in the control of the Federal Government's agencies 
or departments. Yet, this authority was given to the Senate select 
committee investigating Iran-Contra, the select committee to 
investigate the Justice Department undercover activities, and the 
Senate select committee investigating Watergate. We are going to ask 
for that same authority.
  Mr. President, there is an established procedure but we have trampled 
over it by providing such a limited scope to the hearings so that these 
hearings would be worthless.
  Yesterday's amendment does not encourage the oversight committee to 
seek access to information acquired or developed by other investigatory 
bodies. Yet, when the Senate established a select committee on Iran-
Contra, it included a statement encouraging that committee to obtain 
information acquired or developed by other investigatory bodies. That 
same methodology should be part and parcel of this committee and of all 
oversight committees undertaking these kinds of investigations.
  Yesterday's amendment does not request the independent counsel to 
make relevant evidence available to the oversight committee to assist 
the Congress in conducting a thorough investigation in an expeditious 
fashion. Yet, it is interesting that there was such a provision in the 
resolution establishing the Senate Iran-Contra select committee.
  Why have we not followed the normal prescription? How is it that we 
have now come to a point where we have stripped down and made impotent 
any hearings that could have a meaningful inquiry? After having 
insisted that the Senate wait to hold hearings until the independent 
counsel has completed its first phase of investigation, the amendment 
adopted yesterday fails to request that the independent counsel make 
available his evidence to the Whitewater oversight committee.
  Why? What do we have to hide?
  Mr. President, I will offer an amendment to address those obvious 
deficiencies in the legislation which is now being considered.
  Mr. President, yesterday, one of my colleagues called the amendment 
supported by Democrats a ``fig leaf.'' I think that was too generous 
for a transparent effort to prevent meaningful and fair congressional 
oversight of the Whitewater affair.
  The American people can see right through that. I believe they will 
come to understand that that was not a bona fide effort to give people 
the hearings that they are entitled to.


                           Amendment No. 1782

 (Purpose: To authorize hearings on the circumstances surrounding and 
the propriety of the commodities-futures trading activities of Hillary 
                            Rodham Clinton)

  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 1782.

  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 [special 
     subcommittee] shall conduct an investigation into, study of, 
     and hearings on, all matters which have any tendency to 
     reveal the full facts about the circumstances surrounding and 
     the propriety of the committees-futures trading activities of 
     Hillary Rodham Clinton.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. 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. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if 
in morning business for not to exceed 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________