[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 Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes Senator Daschle.


                Amendment No. 1783 to amendment no. 1782

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from New York, and I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], for Mr. 
     Mitchell, proposes an amendment numbered 1783 to the D'Amato 
     amendment No. 1782.

  Mr. DASCHLE. 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.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this amendment is the same amendment 
offered by the majority leader yesterday. It passed, as we all know, on 
a party-line vote. It is an amendment that builds upon the legislation 
offered last March 17.
  The amendment then offered by the majority leader is consistent and 
responsive, and I believe ought to be considered today as it was 
yesterday.
  The resolution on March 17, just to remind my colleagues, stated 
that:

       The hearings should be structured and sequenced in such a 
     manner that in the judgment of the Leaders they would not 
     interfere with the ongoing investigation of Special Counsel 
     Robert B. Fiske, Jr.

  Mr. President, that is really the issue here. The issue was debated 
thoroughly yesterday. I suspect it will be debated again today.
  Unfortunately, we are covering a lot of old ground with the 
deliberations once again before us, legislation frankly that keeps us 
from getting to the investigation we all say we want.
  Under the majority leader's approach, approved yesterday by the 
Senate, hearings will commence on the first phase of the Whitewater 
matter in the Banking Committee approximately 30 days after the special 
counsel indicates that such hearings would not interfere with his 
investigation, or by July 29, whichever is earlier.
  Let me repeat that, just to be sure everyone understands what we did.
  The Senate hearings will commence on the first phase of the 
Whitewater matter in the Banking Committee, as we all have recognized 
has jurisdiction, approximately 30 days after the special counsel 
indicates that such hearings would not interfere with his 
investigation. If they have not commenced prior to July 29, they will 
commence on that date, regardless.
  The President has moved forcefully to address questions which have 
arisen about the so-called Whitewater matter. He has faced questions 
from the media on several occasions, including a major press 
conference. He has reassured the American people. And he has taken 
necessary steps to assure that there will not be even the appearance of 
interference in the investigation by anyone in the White House. The 
First Lady has also addressed the matter in an unprecedented and 
extensive major press conference.
  Just this past Sunday, the President answered special counsel Robert 
Fiske's questions, under oath, for 90 minutes, and Mrs. Clinton 
answered Mr. Fiske's questions, also under oath, for about an hour. 
According to press reports, the questioning was limited to first-phase 
matters.
  So the investigation by the special counsel is underway; it is 
continuing. It is doing what we hoped it would do when we called for 
the special counsel several months ago.
  It is a serious matter. It is being conducted by a serious man. Mr. 
Fiske, as everyone in this room has attested, is a man of unquestioned 
ability and a very strong prosecutor. He is a Republican. He was named 
pursuant to the request led by congressional Republicans for a special 
counsel.
  His appointment was applauded by virtually every single Senator in 
this body. The junior Senator from New York, for example, stated:

       Bob Fiske is uniquely qualified for this position. He is a 
     man of uncompromising integrity. He will unearth the truth 
     for the American people.

  Unearth the truth, that is what we are really trying to do here. If 
we are to unearth the truth in a meaningful way, in a way that is 
subject to some process, then we have no choice but to let Mr. Fiske do 
his job. That is what we said last March 15; that is what we said again 
yesterday, as we confirmed the scope of the inquiry by the Senate 
Banking Committee.
  Many of the same Republicans who called for a special counsel 
unfortunately shifted partisan gears just as soon as he was named, and 
began calling for congressional hearings. Even in the face of that very 
counsel's opposition to such hearings, they continue to demand that the 
Congress go forward in a way that risks damage to the investigation, 
which we all state we want done. Even as we move carefully and 
deliberately toward congressional hearings which do not interfere with 
the investigation, now they complain that we are not moving fast 
enough; that we are stonewalling. This willingness to demand public 
hearings at any cost seems to me, Mr. President, to be further evidence 
that the purpose of all of these calls by some is merely political.
  The special counsel wrote on March 7 of this year to the chairman and 
the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee. In that letter, he 
made a very specific request. That request in part was, and I quote, 
that the:

     committee not conduct any hearings in the areas covered by 
     the grand jury's ongoing investigation, both in order to 
     avoid compromising that investigation and in order to further 
     the public interest in preserving fairness, thoroughness, and 
     confidentiality of the grand jury process.

  He further stated:

       We are doing everything possible to conduct and conclude as 
     expeditiously as possible a complete, thorough and impartial 
     investigation. Inquiry into the underlying events surrounding 
     MGS&L, Whitewater, and CMS by a congressional committee would 
     pose a severe risk to the integrity of our investigation.

  So that was a letter directed to the chairman and the ranking member 
of the Senate Banking Committee asking for time, asking for an 
opportunity to do the work that we asked them to do, asking for the 
credibility to be protected, asking for the ability for him to sort 
fact from fiction, and give us an honest, complete, and thorough 
investigation in a timely manner.
  And then, on March 9, in a public press conference, Mr. Fiske stated 
his position that once his investigation into communications between 
White House officials and Treasury Department or Resolution Trust 
Corporation officials about Whitewater-related matters and his 
investigation into the Park Service Police investigation into the death 
of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster is complete, he would have 
no objection to congressional hearings on those matters.
  In other words, Mr. President, what he was saying is that there are 
phases here that we have talked about now at some length. The first 
phase would be completed, upon which he would turn to the second phase.
  At the press conference related to that second phase, he said:

       [T]he position that I've expressed in the letters and in 
     the meetings has been fairly consistent, that we are 
     concerned about the impact of congressional hearings on the 
     investigations that we are conducting as long as those 
     investigations are in progress. [As] you know, there are 
     really two separate investigations. There's the one that I 
     started with [at] the end of January that's reflected in the 
     regulation that was drafted, which is looking into the 
     activities in Arkansas in the 1980s relating to Madison, 
     Whitewater, and Capital Management, and then here in 
     Washington * * * inquiring into all of the circumstances 
     relating to the death of Vincent Foster.
       The disclosures in recent days about the meetings between 
     the White House officials and the Treasury officials led us 
     to initiate an additional investigation into the 
     circumstances surrounding those meetings, but I think that 
     that investigation relating to those meetings is separable 
     from the other investigations that we started with in 
     January. And I have told Senator Riegle and I've told 
     Senators D'Amato and Cohen that when we are finished with the 
     White House, which I'm quite confident we can be finished 
     with considerably faster than we can the underlying 
     investigation, we would have no objection to congressional 
     hearings at that point so long as something can be done to 
     protect against having the contents of the RTC referrals 
     themselves come out in those hearings.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       But with respect to the underlying investigation, the one 
     that we started with, we are concerned about the impact of 
     congressional hearings on that investigation.

  Mr. President, it is very clear that Mr. Fiske over and over and over 
again has demonstrated his conviction in writing, in statements to the 
media, and in his comments to each of us that it is very critical he be 
given the opportunity to continue and to finish his work; that there is 
a sequencing here that is very important to the legal as well as to the 
legislative process.
  The bipartisan leadership of the House of Representatives met with 
Special Counsel Fiske on Thursday, May 26. At that meeting Mr. Fiske 
stated that by the latter half of June, barring unforeseen 
developments, his office's inquiry into three matters, the first phase 
of the Whitewater matter, will be completed: communications between 
White House officials and Treasury Department or Resolution Trust 
Corporation officials about Whitewater-related matters; the Park 
Service Police investigation into the death of White House Deputy 
Counsel Vincent Foster; and the way in which White House officials 
handled documents in the office of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent 
Foster at the time of his death.
  These are the matters which the Senate yesterday voted to authorize 
the Banking Committee to begin hearings on; in other words, the first 
phase of the investigation will begin in July, as we stipulated in the 
resolution passed yesterday.
  The majority leader, as we debated that resolution, made it very 
clear and emphasized in both public and private statements that he and 
the Senate are and have been firmly committed to meeting the obligation 
that is represented in those hearings, a constitutional obligation to 
conduct proper oversight. We are determined to conduct that oversight 
in an appropriate way which will avoid interfering with the 
investigation now being conducted by Special Counsel Fiske that he has 
so adamantly asked us to do.
  Efforts to go beyond this and, frankly, artificially impose 
timetables for additional hearings concerning the matters which are 
subject to the underlying investigation, clearly run counter to Mr. 
Fiske's requests in his letter of March 7. They run counter to his 
statements in news conferences and in meetings with Senators and 
Congressmen alike. They are counterproductive, they are political, and 
they obfuscate our opportunity to provide a clear answer to the 
outstanding questions relating to this matter.
  So, Mr. President, I certainly hope at some point on this day we can 
resolve these issues, that we can finally get on with it, that we can 
recognize that we have a job to do, a constitutional responsibility to 
conduct oversight hearings in a proper way, recognizing the authority 
of the special prosecutor, recognizing his unique need to finish his 
work first.
  That is what this debate is all about.
  So, as we continue today, I hope people will come to that conclusion 
and share with us a determination to do our work and to do it properly.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North 
Carolina [Mr. Faircloth].
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota 
yield for a question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to respond to a question.
  The Senator from North Carolina has the floor, so it is not necessary 
for me to yield. But I would certainly answer whatever question he may 
propound.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. If Mr. Fiske has no objection to hearings on the 
commodity trades, would the Senator be willing to go immediately into 
Banking Committee or special committee hearings on the commodity 
trades? I mean immediately, if Mr. Fiske has no objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The commodity trades are not a direct result of the 
Whitewater investigation. There is no connection between commodity 
trades and the Whitewater investigation.
  The issue before us has to do with the Whitewater investigation. It 
has to do with coming to grips with our constitutional responsibility 
to directly involve ourselves with proper oversight.
  I do not know whether the Senator from North Carolina has ever 
participated in commodity trades. He certainly would have a right, as 
any American has, to participate in commodity trades. I do not believe, 
if he were to do so, that he would feel it necessary for the Senate to 
oversee his transactions in any personal way.
  It is certainly the right of the Senate to get involved in 
transactions if they perceive there to be some wrongdoing. But there 
has been no wrongdoing in this matter. I suspect that it would be 
appropriate for us to do as the prosecutor has suggested, which is to 
stay with the issue, to get on with the investigation, and to conduct 
our oversight in a meaningful way. I think that is what the Senate will 
do.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Has the Senator ever dealt in commodity trades?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I would answer the Senator that I have not.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I would answer that I have, and that is the exact 
reason that I feel the dealings with Mrs. Clinton are so in need of 
investigation. And I think anybody that has ever had any connection 
with the commodity market would have extreme suspicion from her trades. 
It is an impossible thing to believe.
  Mr. President, the U.S. Senate needs to examine the Whitewater 
affair. The amendment the Senate adopted yesterday was a total sham.
  I have a letter from Mr. Fiske saying that he has no objection to the 
Senate looking into Mrs. Clinton's commodity trades. I would hope that 
we could get on with that immediately. He says he has no objection.
  But the commodity trades are just one aspect of a convoluted trading 
and dealing that went on during this time period we are talking about.
  ``Whitewater'' is a term which not only describes a failed land 
development. It has also come to describe a web of interconnected 
scandals involving personal and political friends of the President.
  Lurid tale after lurid tale has emerged. They involve a mind-boggling 
range of subjects, from drug dealers, to insider trading, to document 
shredding, and more. One subject might seem to have nothing to do with 
the other, except for one thing--the same names keep popping up in 
story after story.
  We are frequently told that while these things do not look too good, 
we have to understand that is the way things are done in Arkansas. 
Everyone knows each other, everything is connected to everything else. 
Nothing is wrong, it just looks bad.
  Yet the very same people who say ``everything is connected'' in 
Arkansas to excuse the likes of Patsy Thomasson working for a drug 
dealer on one day, and in the White House on the next, want to limit 
the Whitewater hearings. They do not want the U.S. Senate to look into 
the interconnected scandals which have collectively come to be know as 
Whitewater.
  Mr. President, the examples of the interconnected scandals which 
require that the Senate hold full--not limited--Whitewater hearings are 
legion.
  For instance, we now know that the drug dealer Dan Lasater, did much 
more than just give Clinton's half-brother Roger a job. We also know 
that Dan Lasater did much more than hold fundraising parties for Bill 
Clinton, fly the Clinton's around in his jet, and fly celebrities to 
Hillary Clinton's charity parties.
  We now know that Dan Lasater told the FBI that he had paid off Roger 
Clinton's drug debts--after Roger told him that cocaine dealers were, 
``putting the heat on him and something might happen to his brother and 
his mother.''
  You may recall that Lasater had first met the mother of the Clinton 
brothers, the late Mrs. Virginia Kelly, at the horse rack track in Hot 
Springs, AR.
  We now know that Federal and State law enforcement documents describe 
widespread cocaine use among Lasater, his employees, business 
associates, and friends. Some of Dan Lasater's employees, business 
associates, and friends now occupy high places in this administration.
  Those same law enforcement documents describe parties at which vials 
of cocaine were distributed as party favors. Ashtrays filled with 
cocaine were spread among the hors d'oeuvres, and cocaine was served on 
the Lasater corporate jets.
  Yet after Bill Clinton was reelected to the Governor's mansion, 
despite the fact that Lasater had been censured by the Arkansas State 
Securities Commissioner and by the National Association of Securities 
Dealers, Lasater was put on the select list of firms eligible to 
underwrite State of Arkansas bonds. That designation made millions for 
Dan Lasater.
  The most infamous bond underwriting issue that Lasater did for 
Governor Clinton was $30.2 million issue for a new State Police radio 
system. That contract alone earned Lasater $750,000 of taxpayer's 
money.
  What many have not heard is how Lasater got the contract. He began by 
arranging a partnership with another brokerage house that had recently 
pled guilty to a multimillion-dollar check kiting scheme in New York. 
Then he went to his friend Bill Clinton.
  In fact, FBI documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times quote one of 
Lasater's partners, a retired Democrat State Senator, as crediting 
Lasater's political support for Clinton for winning the State bond 
contract.
  In May 1986, a board made up of Clinton appointees awarded the 
contract to Lasater. A week later, however, a joint committee of the 
Arkansas Legislature balked. With the project hung up, Bill Clinton 
became personally involved.
  At least three Democrat Arkansas State legislators have said that 
they were personally lobbied by Clinton on behalf of the Lasater 
partnership. One said, ``I remember he lobbied all of us on this,'' and 
then credited Clinton with switching his vote. In June, Dan Lasater was 
awarded the contract.
  But, the story does not end there. In fact, the next phase of the 
story actually began 5 years earlier, in 1981, when the President's 
half-brother Roger was arrested for selling drugs to an undercover 
police officer. Roger Clinton pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 
cocaine.
  After his guilty plea, Roger Clinton was sentenced to 2 years in 
prison. It was a reduced sentence, which he received for agreeing to 
testify against a boyhood friend named Sam Anderson.
  Sam Anderson was tried in February 1985. Testifying on his own 
behalf, Anderson said that Roger Clinton had told him that he had been 
approached by State police investigators and that he was, and I quote 
``Very, very frightened * * * totally frightened to death.'' He said 
that Roger had informed him that the investigators had told him that 
they wanted to set up three people for drug arrests, including Dan 
Lasater.
  The director of Bill Clinton's Arkansas State Police sent an 
investigator to interview Lasater at that time--the same time that the 
Arkansas State Police Commission was considering Dan Lasater's bond 
proposal. According to State and Federal documents, Lasater told the 
investigator during that interview that he had used cocaine.
  But despite the fact that Dan Lasater had just confessed to the 
investigator sent by the director of the State police that he was a 
cocaine user, he was awarded the contract to finance the Arkansas State 
Police radio system.
  Six months after he was awarded the bond contract, Dan Lasater 
formally became the target of a joint State-Federal drug task force 
investigating cocaine distribution in Little Rock. FBI documents show 
that he later confessed to using cocaine, and to giving it away to 
friends, employees, and business associates on more than 180 occasions.
  It has now been revealed that during this investigation, which ran 
through the spring and summer of 1986, Col. Tommy Goodwin, Bill 
Clinton's director of the Arkansas State Police, was routinely briefing 
the Governor on the investigation.
  Bill Clinton, who had been bankrolled by Lasater, who had been flown 
around Arkansas on the Lasater jet, and whose brother's drug debts had 
been paid by Lasater, was now receiving confidential briefings on the 
Lasater criminal investigation.
  Mr. President, Colonel Goodwin says he only did it because Bill 
Clinton was curious, not because he had any special interest in the 
case. We do not know.
  But what we do know is that--from Tommy Goodwin and the Lasater case, 
to Roger Altman and the RTC criminal referrals--it seems that Bill 
Clinton has a special fondness for private heads up from supposedly 
independent agencies.
  In October 1986, Dan Lasater was indicted for possessing and 
distributing cocaine. The U.S. attorney said that Lasater and his 
associates were balant in their drug use. Lasater maintained a supply 
of cocaine in his pockets and even snorted it at his office.
  He pled guilty, and as part of his plea he agreed to make detailed 
statements about his cocaine use. He also agreed to identify the people 
he gave cocaine to during parties, during business meetings, and as 
part of his business entertainment.
  Mr. President, there are many people in high places in the White 
House who associated with Dan Lasater. The public should also know that 
after all this time, many top people at the White House still have not 
yet gotten national security clearances--another brewing scandal. In 
light of that fact, the U.S. Senate should have Dan Lasater's cocaine 
list now.
  Mr. President, I would like to stop this sorry tale right there. But 
one more point has to be made.
  Dan Lasater is out of jail. He is not just a free man. He is a 
pardoned man. Mr. President, the man who admitted to carrying pockets 
full of cocaine was pardoned by Bill Clinton.
  In his application to Bill Clinton for a pardon, Dan Lasater excused 
his criminal behavior, saying that the cocaine was used in social 
situations. He compared it to--and I quote--``paying for dinner and 
drinks for my friends.''
  And, as you know Mr. President, a pardon is necessary before any 
convicted felon can apply to get a firearms license. So Dan Lasater 
went on to say that he wanted the pardon to restore his rights to carry 
firearms, so that he could teach his sons--and again I quote--``the 
skills of the woods.''
  Mr. President, Bill Clinton--the leader of the free world, and the 
man who says that he wants to get firearms out of the hands of 
criminals--issued a pardon to a man who gave out vials of cocaine as 
party favors, and who told him in advance that he wanted the pardon so 
that he could get a gun.
  Mr. President, this is shameful. I was not in the Senate in the 
1980's. I do not know, and I do not care, how many times the Democrats 
investigated the Republicans. Frankly, that is ancient history.
  But if this Senate does not have full Whitewater hearings, hearings 
that get to the bottom of the Dan Lasater mess, the Travelgate mess, 
the commodities trading mess, and all the other fiascos that have been 
transplanted here to infect our Nation's Capital, then the American 
people will cry cover up. And they will be right.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me speak to the amendment.
  First of all, let me thank my colleague for touching on matters that 
might create some consternation with some people. These matters focus 
on: Lasater and his dealings, Patsy Thomasson, who ran Mr. Lasater's 
company for 2 years when he was not present, and the manner in which 
that company operated.
  The amendments to be submitted are necessary because for too long 
these matters have been shrouded. Certainly, it would seem that this is 
the intent of the underlying legislation: To keep us from examining 
these issues so the people can see what is taking place.
  I find it rather disconcerting that Patsy Thomasson, who ran Mr. 
Lasater's company for 2 years while he was in prison, is the Director 
of Administration at the White House. I find it incomprehensible, to be 
quite candid with you. I am shocked to have that kind of situation and 
I wonder how that came about.
  Having said that, I would like to turn to the amendment that I 
offered. This amendment would give us the opportunity and the ability 
to look into the commodities trading activities that led to Mrs. 
Clinton making a profit of $100,000.
  There is nothing wrong with making $100,000. But there seems to be 
some very real question as to how, on the initial day when she 
deposited $1,000 into her account, she sold short 10 cattle futures 
contracts worth $220,000. That is on the very first day of trading.
  The margin requirement at that time for one cattle contract was 
$1,200. To make that initial trade, Mrs. Clinton would have needed to 
have $12,000 in her account. I think it is very fair to ask: If the 
margin requirement for one contract, valued at $22,000, is $1,200, how 
could she buy even one contract with $1,000 on margin, let alone 10. 
How did that happen?
  If you were a good customer, and if you had good financial resources 
and capabilities, you would have to have a minimum of $12,000 in order 
to be able to make that purchase. Who put up the money? Did Tyson Foods 
take the losses, and this particular account take the wins? Are we 
entitled to that information? Of course we are.
  The majority has repeatedly argued that we cannot look at this issue 
until the special counsel does his work. Well, I spoke to the special 
counsel. As a result, he sent Senator Riegle and me a letter dated May 
26. He wrote:

       I have no present objection to any hearings which Congress 
     might wish to hold on the subject * * * talking about the 
     commodities transaction.

  Let me read further:

       I am responding to the two questions raised in your letter 
     of May 23.

  On May 23 we wrote a letter. And, among the other things, we raised 
the question of whether or not he would have any objection to us 
looking into this matter.
  Mr. Fiske wrote:

       The commodities transactions of Mrs. Clinton occurred 
     during the period of time which is outside the applicable 
     statute of limitations. We do not preclude looking into those 
     transactions if circumstances develop during our 
     investigation which would, nonetheless, make this trading 
     relevant to our investigation. I have no present objection to 
     any hearings which Congress might wish to hold on the 
     subject.

  So I have to ask why this second-degree amendment would make it 
impossible for us to go forward? Why? I have to say, Mr. President, it 
is because this amendment's intent is to avoid looking at anything that 
might prove embarrassing to the administration. It is an attempt to 
circumscribe and to keep a committee of Congress from doing its job. 
That is just simply intolerable. It is wrong. That is why we cannot 
accept the proposed methodology of going forward. That is why I said 
that Congress has really done itself a great disservice by negating a 
200-year tradition of thorough and fair congressional oversight 
hearings, notwithstanding our tradition over the years.
  We are attempting now to offer amendments that would deal with the 
deficiencies. One such deficiency is that there is no provision in the 
legislation providing us with the ability to look into the commodities 
trading. I would daresay any fair-minded person would say that we 
should examine these trades.
  Did Tyson Foods, by the way, deduct losing trades illegally after a 
possible allocation of trades by the broker? I do not know. But I think 
we are entitled to those records to see exactly where the moneys came 
from.
  This is just one illustration. There are many others. The fact is 
that on the very day of inception there was an account of only $1,000, 
and that this account, which could not even buy one futures contract, 
bought 10. It cannot be done. It absolutely cannot be done. We are not 
talking about a corporation of great wealth saying, ``Don't worry. We 
will send you the money later.'' We are talking about $1,000 from 
someone who admitted they did not have great resources. This was all 
the account had. Yet on the first day cattle futures contracts worth 
$220,000 were traded, which would have called for a minimum margin 
requirement of $12,000. Where did the money come from? Where did the 
profit come from? Did Tyson Foods, on that day, absorb a loss? Did 
Tyson buy on both sides? Were the profits then assigned to the account? 
Did they take writeoffs on this? Did the Clintons come into Whitewater 
to shelter the income that they made from the commodities transaction? 
It has been suggested that that may have been one of the reasons they 
initially went into Whitewater, as a means of sheltering the profits 
from the commodities trades. How much of the income from the 
commodities trading was sheltered by way of Whitewater? I do not know.
  But again, Mr. Fiske indicated that his investigation did not 
encompass the commodities trades, and as a result this is an area that 
the committee can and should be investigating.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded..
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
vote on the Mitchell amendment No. 1783 at 2:30 p.m.; that upon the 
disposition of that amendment, the Senate vote on Senator D'Amato's 
amendment No. 1782, as amended, if amended, with the preceding all 
occurring without any intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do I hear objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that pending 
amendments be set aside so that I may offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1784

 (Purpose: To authorize hearings on the Resolution Trust Corporation's 
internal handling of the criminal referrals concerning Madison Guaranty 
                     Savings and Loan Association)

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. 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 Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1784.

  Mr. DASCHLE. 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 [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 Resolution Trust 
     Corporation's internal handling of the criminal referrals 
     concerning 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.

  Mr. DASCHLE. 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. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________