[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 Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have spoken on occasion before about 
the question of Whitewater and the appropriate way that the Senate 
should proceed with respect to it. I have some observations to make 
again today as we find ourselves at a point of impasse.
  I hope that the Senate can move forward on this. I think it is not 
particularly productive for the institution or for the country to have 
us tied up in the kinds of procedural wrangling that is going on at the 
moment. I want to make clear my position with respect to this whole 
question.
  First, I will summarize again my overall view of the entire 
Whitewater question. I know that staff has been digging very 
assiduously into the past in an effort to come up with all of the 
details of what happened with respect to Madison Guaranty and the 
Whitewater investment, what the participation of the Clintons were, 
what was the participation of the McDougals, et cetera, et cetera, et 
cetera.
  I could rehearse all of those details here, and I suppose they will 
be rehearsed at one point or another as this thing goes on. I am not 
sure that is particularly useful, although I understand why people do 
it.
  For me, the whole Whitewater thing has come down to two basic 
questions. The first one--a troubling one that has been raised in the 
press, perhaps not in this distinct a fashion but overall--has to do 
with the behavior of the administration of the State of Arkansas during 
the period of time that Bill Clinton was the Governor.
  Very specifically, the question is this: Was the governorship of 
Arkansas for sale during the period of time that Bill Clinton held it? 
Or, as some of my friends have suggested, maybe not for sale, just for 
rent. That is a matter of degree.
  Did special interests decide to take advantage of their relationship 
with the Governor of Arkansas to their own benefit in such a way that 
would be considered unfair or improper? And was the currency with which 
the purchase may have been made in the form of favors for investment 
opportunities or, as has been raised in the case of Mrs. Clinton, 
investment advice?
  I do not know the answer to that, Mr. President, and I am not 
prejudging the case, but I think it is a serious question that needs to 
be examined and needs to be answered.
  We have in the legal system in this country two levels of proof: The 
first before a grand jury, the level of reasonable suspicion of 
wrongdoing, and the second level, the removal of reasonable doubt. They 
are two steps. It is easier to get an indictment than it is to get a 
conviction. I think that is appropriate.
  I am not suggesting, as some of my friends in the media have, that 
the President and his wife are due for a conviction. I think it is very 
clear that any case that would answer the question--Was the 
governorship of Arkansas for sale?--has not been answered to the point 
of reasonable doubt. But I do think to the grand jury threshold of 
whether or not there should be an investigation of that first question, 
enough has been raised to justify going forward.
  A special counsel, independent counsel, has been appointed to go 
forward to examine these details out of which we can get, perhaps, the 
ultimate answer to the question: Was the governorship for sale?
  There are those who say until the special counsel reports, the 
Congress has no responsibility at all to investigate this matter. And 
that is the crux of what it is we are debating today and have been 
debating for past days and perhaps will continue to debate until we can 
arrive at some kind of solution to this situation.
  If we frame the question in the overall manner that I have proposed 
here, there are some aspects of this that do not fall within the 
purview of the independent counsel.
  Very specifically, the question of Mrs. Clinton's profits in 
commodity trading fall outside of the jurisdiction of the special 
counsel.
  I have a letter which was addressed to Senator D'Amato, the ranking 
member of the Banking Committee, signed by Robert Fiske, the special 
counsel or independent counsel, in which he makes it clear that that 
issue falls outside of the purview of his investigation. He says:

       The commodity transactions of Mrs. Clinton occurred during 
     a 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 that trading 
     relevant to our investigation. I have no present objection to 
     any hearings which Congress might wish to hold on that 
     subject.

  I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter be printed in the 
Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                            Office of the Independent Counsel,

                                    Washington, DC., May 26, 1994.
     Hon. Alfonse M. D'Amato,
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator D'Amato: I am responding to the two questions 
     raised in your letter of May 23, 1994.
       The commodity transactions of Mrs. Clinton occurred during 
     a 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 nontheless make that trading 
     relevant to our investigation. I have no present objection to 
     any hearings which Congress might wish to hold on that 
     subject.
       The White House review of Treasury documents relating to 
     contacts between the White House and Treasury officials 
     involves a small number of documents which will not take 
     anyone very long to review. Because of the risk of such 
     documents becoming public prior to the completion of our 
     investigation, I would prefer that you defer obtaining those 
     documents at this time. I am confident that following that 
     procedure will not cause any delay in any hearings you may 
     decide to hold.
           Respectfully yours,
                                             Robert B. Fiske, Jr.,
                                              Independent Counsel.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, there are those who say the statute of 
limitations has run. Why therefore should Congress look at it?
  I return to my earlier question. Was the governorship of Arkansas for 
sale or for rent to special interests during the period of time when 
Governor Clinton held it? In that context, the commodity transactions 
of Mrs. Clinton are very relevant, and they are relevant today. They 
may not be available for any kind of disciplinary action be taken 
against her or her broker if indeed anything went wrong or anything was 
improper. But that is not the point. They are appropriate in answering 
the overall question because, if indeed the governorship of Arkansas 
was available to be purchased, this might have been the currency that 
was used to make that purchase. I stress again the words ``may'' and 
``might'' because nothing has been proven, and we are not in any way to 
the point of making conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt.
  Mrs. Clinton herself recognized the appropriateness of public 
interest in this issue when she went before the Nation in a press 
conference, and answered any and all questions with respect to this. 
She believes that her answers were sufficient that the matter should 
now be closed. I respect the way in which she handled herself. But I 
have read carefully the answers that she gave. And I think there are 
still areas that for her own benefit need to be illuminated further. If 
they cannot be illuminated in a press conference, it is appropriate 
that they be illuminated in a congressional investigation.
  As I have said on this floor before, there is a second question which 
arises with respect to this. So what? Why does it concern the U.S. 
Senate if the governorship of a single State was handled in a way that 
may have transcended certain boundaries some years ago? What is the 
legislative purpose on the part of the U.S. Senate to investigate these 
kind of things? And I recall the comments that have been made in the 
past with respect to Senate investigations to the effect that we should 
not engage in any investigation that does not have a clear legislative 
purpose. Indeed, there were those who tried to discipline Senator 
Joseph McCarthy when he was conducting his investigations by saying 
these may produce interesting information, but they do not lead to 
legislative action. And, unless a Senate investigation leads to a 
legislative purpose, it is not sanctioned under the rules of the 
Senate.
  I would be happy to live by that rule if indeed it had not been 
repealed by precedent. In the Congress of the United States 
long since the time of Joseph McCarthy, the standard has been changed 
over and over again by precedent the Congress has demanded and 
exercised the right to go beyond legislative purpose in its 
investigation.
  The most egregious example of that, which I hope we would not ever 
return to, was the investigation into the so-called October Surprise 
where millions of dollars of taxpayers' money was spent trying to find 
out whether or not George Bush was in Paris on a certain date. Since he 
was under Secret Service protection at the time as a candidate for the 
Vice-Presidency, it would seem to me a very simple matter to determine 
by asking the Secret Service to produce their logs. But the Congress in 
its wisdom decided that was worthy of a full investigation, and they 
went forward and conducted the investigation. By allowing that to 
happen along with other investigations that we have seen documented 
here on the floor in great detail, we have by precedent changed the 
rule.
  I think it inappropriate for Members of this body to now say that 
since the individual who would be investigated under the rule 
established by the precedents happens to be a Democrat, we must go back 
to the old rules and say no, that is out of bounds. Once a precedent 
has been established, it is lived by. And I believe that the Congress 
under the precedent established here in the Senate and in the House 
over the last 10 to 12 or 15 years clearly has an appropriate role to 
play in this circumstance.
  There is a second question which arises out of the first. Has the 
Clinton Administration used its position to prevent examination of the 
first question? As I say, the first question is: Was the governorship 
of Arkansas for sale or rent? Now the second question: In an effort to 
discourage people from answering the first question, has the Clinton 
administration acted improperly? Now we go to the questions that the 
independent counsel is examining. That is what has produced the 
subpoenas, the depositions, and in some cases the resignations that 
have occurred within the White House staff.
  There are those who say it is clearly improper for Congress to 
examine any of that because that is within the purview of the 
independent counsel. I believe you cannot cut this seamless web. If you 
are going to conduct a complete investigation, you must do it on the 
basis of both questions, keeping them linked as they inevitably must 
be, and examining them in the proper way.
  So, Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of the ranking 
member of the Banking Committee, Mr. D'Amato, who is saying let us move 
ahead with at least an investigation of the details of Mrs. Clinton's 
commodity transactions in an effort to get to the bottom of this 
affair.
  We make a few observations about those transactions which I think 
will come as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with the commodities 
market. This also goes to why I think Mrs. Clinton's press conference, 
admirable as it was, falls short of the full disclosure that I think 
the American people were seeking when they tuned in on that Friday 
afternoon.
  I have been involved in commodities transactions myself. I found them 
much too rapid for my stomach to handle. I have invested in the stock 
market most of my life. I bought some bonds. I dabbled in real estate. 
I tried commodities I think for about 2 or 3 weeks. I decided this is 
too fast a game for me. I am going to go back to the relative quiet of 
the stock market because the commodity market moves so rapidly. The 
margin requirements are such that you can lose everything in a matter 
of a few minutes. It is not something that I want to undertake on a 
part-time basis.
  I have talked to people who have made their living in the commodities 
market. Indeed, they have come to me voluntarily. They have said, 
Senator, we believe it is highly unlikely to the point of being 
impossible for someone to do what according to the press Mrs. Clinton 
was able to do on a part-time basis reading the Wall Street Journal and 
making up her own mind.
  The White House and Mrs. Clinton have subsequently changed the 
initial report that she did it all by herself. That is ``no longer 
operative,'' to quote one White House staffer. But even so, in the 
minds of those familiar with the way the commodities market works, 
there is a lingering suspicion that there is still something that we 
have not been told. As I say, reading the answers Mrs. Clinton gave at 
her press conference, I find that that suspicion does not go away. Am I 
accusing her of illegal activity? No, I am not. I am suggesting, 
however, that she and we would benefit from a further airing of all of 
the circumstances. It is very simple, Mr. President, to get that 
airing, because these transactions do not take place in a corner, as it 
were. They take place in an atmosphere of documentation and 
preservation of archives.
  I understand that the people at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 
where these transactions took place, have maintained full records of 
every one of the transactions. People at the Chicago Merc have been 
asked to provide those records to the members of the Banking Committee. 
They have responded that they cannot do so, under their regulations, 
without the permission of the individual involved. I can understand 
that, and I can applaud that. I think it is appropriate that we have 
that degree of privacy for individuals involved in financial 
transactions. But if indeed the desire stated by Mrs. Clinton at her 
press conference, which was to put this matter entirely behind her, 
what better way to do it than to produce not her spoken version of what 
happened, but the available written confirmation of what happened? And 
if it happened and she remembers that it happened, the written 
confirmation will prove that. If it happened in a slightly different 
fashion, I am willing to grant her that her memory could be faulty this 
many years later, and any kind of innocent deviation between the 
written record and her spoken record would, in my view, be completely 
understandable.
  However, the refusal to provide any of the written record does leave 
in the minds of some the suggestion that the written record might 
indeed be damaging to her overall case. If I were advising Mrs. 
Clinton, I would say: You do not want to leave that impression in 
anybody's mind. Review the written records yourself first, by all 
means, but then if indeed they correspond to what you have said to the 
American people, make them available to the American people, and make 
them available in the forum that will give you the highest credibility, 
which is the Senate Banking Committee. The request has been made; the 
request has not been responded to.
  I respectfully suggest that the way to see that it is responded to, 
for Mrs. Clinton's benefit, as well as the country's, is for the 
amendment offered by the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato], to pass 
and for the Banking Committee to be allowed to pursue its request for 
these written records.
  Mr. President, that is really all I have to say about the substance 
of the matter. I cannot resist, however, since I have the floor, making 
a somewhat more whimsical comment in this circumstance out of a 
personal observation here.
  I am one of those who cannot really begin the day without visiting 
the comics page and getting my fix from ``Calvin and Hobbes'' and 
``Doonesbury.'' ``Calvin and Hobbes'' is currently in remission, if you 
will, the author of that strip being on extended sabbatical and 
recycling old strips, all of which I have read. And so I turn to 
``Doonesbury'' for my daily dose of humor.
  Unfortunately, ``Doonesbury'' is spending its time these days talking 
about medieval church documents relating to marriage ceremonies. I 
regret the fact that Mr. Trudeau's politics prevents him from treating 
this matter with the same sense of humor that he brought to Vice 
President Quayle's experience with the National Guard, or President 
Bush's membership in Skull and Bones at Yale. Can you imagine how much 
fun we would have with ``Doonesbury'' if Webb Hubbell had been named Ed 
Meese, or how much delight we would have about the actions of Mr. 
McDougal, if indeed his name had been Neil Bush? I can only speculate 
as to how much fun ``Doonesbury'' and his characters would have with 
the White House if Nancy Reagan had fired the chief usher and the chef.
  I would hope that at some point soon we would have a Republican 
administration so that ``Doonesbury'' can once again start dealing with 
political matters instead of spending all of his time in medieval 
marriage ceremonies. I would hope that Mr. Trudeau would somehow find 
it in his heart to at least see some humor in the way this whole thing 
is playing out instead of giving us a complete blackout of his ability 
to skewer the important and the mighty.
  I realize as I say this I run the risk of being skewered myself as 
Mr. D'Amato has been, but I take solace in the fact that I am neither 
as important nor as mighty as Senator D'Amato and it will take me some 
years before I rate any kind of a mention in the ``Doonesbury'' strip.
  I yield the floor.


                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I am advised by my staff that this has 
been cleared, and they have been advised by Republican staff that this 
has been approved.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the disposition of 
Senator D'Amato's amendment No. 1782, the Senate vote on Senator 
Mitchell's amendment No. 1785; that upon the disposition of amendment 
No. 1785, the Senate vote on Senator Murkowski's amendment No. 1784, as 
amended, if amended, with the preceding all occurring without any 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, this means that there will be two 
rollcall votes beginning at 2:30, on the second-degree amendment which 
I have offered to Senator D'Amato's amendment, and the second-degree 
amendment which I have offered to Senator Murkowski's amendment. My 
hope is that if our colleagues have additional amendments, they will 
present them and we can put those in line for a vote as well at 2:30.
  We are making little progress on this bill, and I merely repeat what 
I said yesterday afternoon, that we will be in session this week until 
we complete action on this bill and on the legislative appropriations 
bill and, hopefully, on one or more nominations. It appears now that it 
will require a very late session this evening, at the rate we are 
proceeding on this bill, and a very late session tomorrow evening, and 
all during the day on Friday. I hope that does not occur, but I want 
everyone to be aware of that so that they can adjust their schedules 
accordingly. Finally, I encourage our colleagues that if they have 
amendments, it is better to offer them during the day and get some work 
done during the day, rather than wait and have so many amendments and 
votes in the evening.
  So I encourage our colleagues, who I am advised do have other 
amendments, to come forward and offer them, and let us debate them and 
vote on them.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNETT. 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. PRYOR. 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. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is not appropriate for a Senator to 
stand on the floor of the U.S. Senate and to specifically address those 
in the gallery. But I do think, Mr. President, it is appropriate and I 
think justifiable that a Senator stand on the Senate floor and explain 
to those watching this performance of the U.S. Senate this afternoon 
and to educate the citizenry on exactly what is taking place in the 
greatest deliberative body in the world.
  What we have before this body this afternoon is an amendment offered 
by some of our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle. The 
contents, or 98 percent of the contents, of this particular amendment 
have already been dealt with and basically disposed of in another 
amendment offered by the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato].
  After his amendment basically went down, our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle devised a way to basically stop all legislative 
business from being conducted by the U.S. Senate, attempting, second, 
to embarrass the administration, and, third, to make certain that no 
legitimate business, such as welfare reform and health care and 
appropriations measures that we do have an obligation to attend to, to 
make certain, Mr. President, that none of those important matters that 
truly affect every American in this country are considered by the U.S. 
Senate at this time.
  Well, under the rules of the Senate, as the distinguished Presiding 
Officer fully knows, any Senator basically can stop this body in its 
tracks, not only with a filibuster but also with the threat of a 
filibuster. That is known. That is a part of the rules of this body. 
Whether we like them or not, whether we agree with them or not, that 
basically would be the rules of the U.S. Senate.
  Mr. President, this is a different situation from that. Here we have 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle offering a series of 
amendments to take up the Senate's time, to waste the Senate's time, to 
waste the taxpayers' time of this body, and to make certain that we do 
nothing which is meaningful and constructive for this country.
  The Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato], our good friend, our 
distinguished colleague from New York, has stated that this is not the 
only amendment that is going to be brought up in this manner; that he 
might have--and I think I am quoting correctly; I was not here earlier 
in the day--but I think Senator D'Amato is intimating that he may have 
from 44 to 45 or 46 variations of this amendment.
  Well, once again, for the benefit of the public, so that they will 
know what our rules of the Senate are, we have, Mr. President, for 
their information, a 15-minute rollcall vote. That is how long we have 
to get from our committees and our offices and our other functions and 
duties from around the Capitol and on Capitol Hill or our homes or 
wherever we might be. We have to come to the floor and we have 15 
minutes to answer our name or we are marked absent.
  So if the Senator from New York has 45, let us say, amendments 
remaining, one, I wish he would be here and offer them so we would know 
what they would be. Second, I wish the Senator from New York would be 
here this afternoon with the rest of us--there is only 1 percent, by 
the way, of the U.S. Senate in the Chamber at this time; the rest are 
gone. But Senator D'Amato and his friends should be here, I think, 
offering amendments, debating amendments, talking about what he wants 
to do or does not want to do.
  But he is absent without leave. He is a.w.o.l., Mr. President. He is 
gone. He has fled.
  What we have here is a vote coming up at 2:30, and another following 
that. And then we only assume that the Senator from New York, or other 
of his colleagues, will start offering 44 or 45 other amendments, at 15 
minutes each. At 15 minutes each on a rollcall vote, Mr. President, it 
does not take a rocket scientists to figure out that, from that point 
forward, when those amendments are offered, we are going to see the 
Senate in a state of total and complete paralysis. We will be doing 
nothing but voting. We will be voting all night and all day and all 
night and all day; and, Mr. President, the business of the country, the 
real business of the country, will be suffering.
  Mr. President, what is this amendment all about and why is this 
amendment being offered?
  It is being offered basically to delay. It is being offered by those 
on the other side to prevent us, as I have said, from doing anything 
constructive. But, more importantly, it is being offered in an attempt 
to embarrass this administration and to elongate this process, this 
very complicated process, of the Whitewater investigation.
  Once again, Mr. President, for the benefit of all of us, we should 
all know that on March 17, by a vote of 98 to nothing, this Senate 
adopted a resolution which proclaimed without one dissenting vote that 
we were going on record in cooperating with Mr. Fiske, the special 
counsel in the Whitewater investigation; that we were in good time 
going to have a hearing and that that hearing would be one that would 
completely and totally comply with the other aspects of this 
investigation.
  The reason that this side of the aisle wants to make certain that 
compliance is made available to Mr. Fiske and his staff is because, 
hopefully, we have learned lessons from the past. Those lessons from 
the past were that our country, even trying to exert our good 
intentions, even though trying to find facts and bring evidence to the 
forefront, actually did damage to several legal processes in the past.
  I think the majority leader, in his very eloquent manner, has 
succinctly stated what this issue is all about. This particular issue 
today that we are debating is an issue that reflects a total lack of a 
policy or a program on the economy, on the appropriations measures that 
will be coming before the U.S. Senate, on health care, on welfare 
reform, on crime--a total lack of a policy or a program, as the 
majority leader has said. The only program at this point that is 
forthcoming from the other side is Whitewater. Whitewater. Whitewater.
  How many times over the past several months have we heard Whitewater 
on the floor of the U.S. Senate? I am sure we will hear it a lot more. 
I am sure in the next days and nights of long and perhaps all-night 
sessions when our colleagues on the other side bring forth their 40-
some-odd amendments, that we will hear a lot more discussion about 
Whitewater.
  Mr. President, I think today we should set the record straight as to 
what this debate is all about, why it has been instigated, why we are 
here this afternoon basically doing nothing, treading time. We are 
talking on a treadmill, hour after hour after hour. I am afraid we are 
not getting any results or any advantages from it.
  I hope we can talk our friends on the other side into basically a 
limitation of some amendments so we can pass this bill. This, by the 
way, Mr. President, as all of us know, is the airport bill. There are a 
lot of issues encompassed, embodied in this particular legislation that 
affect many of the Nation's smaller airports--our communities. I am 
sure they are anxiously awaiting us to complete this basically 
nonsensical parade of amendments that have been and will be offered to 
this legislation so we can get on with the substance of what the U.S. 
Senate ought to be attempting to accomplish.
  Mr. President, in just a moment, I am going to come back and seek 
recognition and make a very, very brief announcement. Until that time, 
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. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________