[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.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise to make several observations 
concerning the so-called Whitewater investigation that we are now 
considering before the Senate.
  One is my real disappointment in the tactics that are employed by the 
majority leader to prevent consideration of Republican amendments, 
amendments that are offered on this side. Basically, most all of these 
amendments are to expand the very narrow scope of the investigation 
that is now proposed by the majority leader.
  The majority leader has only three narrow areas that can be 
investigated. The Senator from New York has proposed 17 areas. We have 
amendments that would allow two additional areas to be examined by the 
investigation.
  I have looked into a little bit of history and find that almost all 
the investigations that we have had and the hearings that we have had 
in the past have been fairly broad, as they should be. Really, when you 
begin an investigation, you do not know where it is going to lead, but 
to have one so conscripted as to not allow you to get into basic issues 
and answer basic questions, I think, is misleading the American public.
  I think it is trying to say, yes, we are going to have hearings but, 
in reality, the hearings proposed by the majority leader are so narrow 
in scope that I do not even know why we would bother.
  I have looked a little bit into hearings. I notice when we had the 
ABSCAM hearings, investigations, when we passed a resolution calling 
for it, it said ``such other related matters as the Select Committee 
deems necessary in order to carry out its responsibilities.''
  In looking, in addition, to the Senate Iran-Contra Committee, the 
committee was given authority to,

       * * * investigate and study any activity, circumstance, 
     material or transaction having a tendency to prove or 
     disprove that any person engaged in any illegal, improper, 
     unauthorized or unethical conduct in connection with the 
     shipment of arms to Iran or use of the proceeds from arms 
     sales to provide assistance to the Nicaraguan rebels.

  The Senate Watergate Committee was specifically authorized to,

       * * * investigate any activities, materials or transactions 
     which have a tendency to prove or disprove that a person 
     engaged in illegal, improper, or unethical activities in 
     connection with the Presidential election of 1972.

  In other words, there was very broad discretion given to the 
committee to investigate the allegations. That is not the case in the 
so-called Whitewater investigation resolution proposed by the majority 
leader. It is conscripted, very narrow, very defined, very limited and 
does not allow the committee to go into other areas.
  Now, some people might say this is a witch hunt but far from it. I am 
looking at several items, a couple of the amendments that we have 
pending, one of which is RTC's internal handling of Madison criminal 
referrals. Why should not Congress look at that? Why in the world would 
we even say that we are going to have Whitewater hearings if we cannot 
look at RTC's referral of criminal investigations?
  I think that the Mitchell resolution is a sham. I think it is a 
coverup. I am really disappointed.
  I might just mention a couple of things. One, I do not know that one 
party or the other party is going to maintain control of the Senate. I 
have only been in the Senate for 14 years. I have been in the Senate 
when Republicans have been in control, and I have been in the Senate 
when Democrats have been in control. But I cannot recall any time where 
we have tried to restrict an investigative committee or hearings and 
limit their scope as so narrowly proposed by the majority leader.
  I look at other things the Senator from New York suggested we look 
into: The relationship between Madison and other federally insured 
institutions and Whitewater Corp.
  Now, people are calling this the Whitewater hearings or 
investigation, but why can we not look at the relationship between 
Madison Guaranty and Whitewater?
  Madison Guaranty lost millions of dollars and the taxpayers had to 
bail it out. I am not sure exactly how many millions but I have heard 
$50, $60-some million--millions of dollars. They lost a lot of money. 
They were involved in financing Whitewater. President and Mrs. Clinton 
owned half of Whitewater, but yet we are precluded from looking into 
Madison Guaranty and their operation and their connection with 
Whitewater? We should not call them Whitewater hearings if we are not 
going to investigate some of the facts pertaining to Madison Guaranty 
and Whitewater Corp.
  As a matter of fact, in the resolution the majority leader has 
proposed, there is almost no mention of Whitewater. I am looking at 
Senator Mitchell's resolution. It says, ``Whether improper conduct 
occurred regarding communications between officials of the White House 
and the Department of Treasury or RTC regarding Whitewater and 
Madison'' but not really did Madison bail out Whitewater.
  What happened to those millions of dollars? Were there some illegal 
activities? Were campaign contributions made from Madison Guaranty to 
President Clinton's campaign? Can those be investigated? Not under the 
majority leader's resolution.
  There have been a lot of allegations. I am not going to repeat all 
the allegations. I am not saying they are substantiated. But certainly 
they should not be precluded from the investigation. Possibly the 
investigation would clear up a lot of the allegations that have been 
made favorably to the Clintons. They should want that to happen. We 
should want all the facts to be made known, be made public and really 
get this issue behind us. We cannot do this under Senator Mitchell's 
resolution.
  There are several other questions. Should we investigate the 
management and business activities of Whitewater including personal, 
corporate and partnership tax liability? Should we investigate 
conflicts of interest and cost controls in the representation of the 
RTC and other Federal banking agencies or other regulatory agencies? 
That is a legitimate oversight responsibility of Congress, and yet we 
are going to be precluded from asking questions about RTC and their 
oversight and possible conflicts of interest? How can we call this a 
hearing? I think we should be ashamed if we have so-called Whitewater 
hearings but we are going to have the scope so narrowly defined as 
proposed by the majority leader.
  A couple other comments, Mr. President, I want to make and that 
concerns the tactics which are now employed by the majority leader in 
preventing Members of this side of the aisle from offering amendments. 
The majority leader right now--and I wish to be corrected if I am 
incorrect--has offered the same amendment three or four times as a 
second-degree amendment to whatever first-degree amendment the Senator 
from New York or the Senator from Alaska or a Member from this side of 
the aisle have offered.
  The amendments that have been offered on this side of the aisle have 
been to expand the scope of the investigation, so it would not be a 
sham, it would not be a coverup. But in every case the majority leader 
has offered amendments that strike whatever amendment is offered on 
this side and inserted new language, and that new language is the same 
language we have already passed. And it basically says let us have the 
hearings, let us have them at the end of July, let us have them 
conclude no later than the end of this session, and let us keep them 
narrowly focused to these three items. In other words, no expansion 
whatsoever in the hearings.
  So by the majority leader doing that--he has proven he has the votes. 
He has had 56 votes on 3 or 4 occasions already--he is precluding this 
side from offering any amendment.
  Now, I have been here 14 years, and I know that both sides have 
played the game. They will have a first degree and maybe a second 
degree to get a vote on their amendment. Well, the majority leader is 
precluding us from any votes, period. And he is using a so-called 
policy of prior recognition of the majority leader. I do not think that 
is a rule. I might mention to the Chair and I might inquire later of 
the Parliamentarian if that is a Senate rule. I think it is more of a 
Senate custom.
  I will make a parliamentary inquiry. Is it a Senate rule that the 
majority leader is automatically recognized or is the Senate rule such 
that the President of the Senate would recognize whichever Senator 
seeks recognition first?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair responds to the Senator from 
Oklahoma by telling the Senator that if recognition was sought 
simultaneously, then the majority leader would be recognized first. 
Otherwise, the Senator who seeks recognition is given recognition by 
the Chair.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Chair, and that is my recollection, too, 
that whichever Senator seeks recognition first should be so recognized 
by the Chair.
  I might mention I am not sure that is what is happening right now. I 
might also mention to my colleagues, a couple of whom are on the 
opposite side of the aisle and may wish to speak on this issue, that 
they should remember a couple of things. If the practice that the 
majority leader is trying to follow--and I hope not successfully--
should be extended to this and other issues, then the minority party 
has no right to offer any amendments, or has no right to have their 
amendments considered because the majority will come in and offer 
second-degree amendments which strike or strip the first-degree 
amendment.
  Now, that in its most narrow interpretation means, minority, you 
cannot offer an amendment because whatever you do, we are going to 
offer a second-degree amendment, even if we have to pass the same 
amendment 10 times or maybe 17 times. Or the Senator from New York has 
47 amendments. Maybe we are going to spend 3 weeks on this bill because 
the majority leader wants 47 votes on his amendment. But some of us 
feel very strongly. We think it is important to have a Whitewater 
investigation. We think it is important to have a decent investigation, 
not a coverup or a sham and have it have some authority to look into 
serious issues.
  But I will tell my colleagues that I think it is even more important 
that we have the minority rights respected and not have a parliamentary 
procedure where basically, if you are in the minority party, your 
amendments are not going to be recognized.
  I mention this for a couple of reasons. One of my colleagues on the 
other side may well be in the minority. I happen to be one who kind of 
believes in fighting for the rights of the minority. It is one of the 
good things about being in the Senate. This is not the House of 
Representatives. I do not want it to be the House of Representatives. 
The minority has very little authority or very little opportunity to 
offer amendments in the House. I think that maybe should go under 
review. They are looking at trying to get us to change our rules 
concerning extended debate. I think they might look at their rules and 
allow the minority to offer some amendments.
  But that is not my purpose in speaking today. My purpose is to say: 
Wait a minute. We should not get into a procedure where we allow, in 
effect, the majority to automatically recognize themselves for the 
purpose of offering second-degree amendments, precluding the minority 
from offering and having votes on their amendments.
  Some of us, I might mention, are going to be willing to spend a 
little time to try to protect minority rights so we can offer 
amendments. It may be on this bill. It may be on some other bill. But 
we should not find ourselves in a situation where no matter what the 
amendment is, no matter how meritorious, we are not going to get a vote 
on it because the majority leader or his designee says no, we are not 
going to have a vote on that; we will just have a vote on our second-
degree amendment.
  I think if we fall into that pattern, that is a serious mistake and a 
real loss to the Senate as an institution, as a legislative body. I 
just hope we do not allow that to happen. I hope we do not set the 
precedent for that happening on this particular issue.
  One final comment. I see two of my colleagues wish to speak. 
Whitewater is important. It is important that we get the facts out. It 
is important that we have the hearings and we get all these issue 
resolved. There is no way in the world we can get it resolved with 
Senator Mitchell's resolution. I hope the press has a chance to look at 
what little his resolution calls for as far as the investigation. If 
they can call that an investigation in good conscience, I think they 
are sadly mistaken are or misled.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor].
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me.
  Mr. President, I was listening intently to my good friend, Senator 
Nickles from Oklahoma. If my memory serves me correctly--I think it 
does, and I hope it will--last week, in negotiations with the Senator 
from New York [Mr. D'Amato], with regard to a potential series of 
amendments that would be offered by the Senator from New York and/or 
Senators from the other side of the aisle relative to the Whitewater 
investigation, it is this Senator's understanding that the Senator from 
New York was offered the opportunity--I repeat, that the Senator from 
New York was offered the opportunity--by the majority to have any and 
all of the amendments that he would bring forth before the Senate to be 
disposed of by an up-or-down vote. He had one amendment, according to 
good information, that encompassed everything, and that he is now 
bringing separate, I say before the Senate at this time.
  So Senator D'Amato from New York had an opportunity to have an up-or-
down vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. PRYOR. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. NICKLES. To get a definitive answer, I think you may need Senator 
Mitchell and Senator D'Amato. It is my understanding that Senator 
D'Amato was not offered the opportunity to have a vote on his amendment 
without it being subject to second degree by the majority leader, and 
also was not offered the opportunity to have individual second-degree 
amendments to expand the scope of the investigation.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, let me respond to my friend from Oklahoma. 
Fine; if we want to get any confirmation from the majority leader and 
the Senator from New York, that is fine. It is my understanding that 
the proposal was put to Senator D'Amato that if there was a resolution 
considered, if a resolution were considered, that there would be an up-
or-down vote on the resolution offered by the Senator from New York.
  To me, this is a very fair balance. It was something the majority 
offered to the Senator from New York. The Senator from New York turned 
this proposal down. Therefore, it only makes sense that every time the 
Senator from New York now offers an amendment which takes out one 
little segment at a time--we understand he has 45 amendments left to 
go--that it is only natural that from this side of the aisle, we would 
attempt to second-degree these amendments.

  The Senator from New York had that opportunity. He turned that 
opportunity down, and therefore put himself and the Senators on the 
other side of the aisle in the condition or in the predicament, you 
might say, that the Senator from Oklahoma is now referring to.
  Mr. President, we are going to vote, I understand, in about 5 or 6 
minutes. But on a related matter, the Senator from Oklahoma was talking 
about a huge loss by the Madison Guaranty. I think the loss, Mr. 
President, was $46 million. To me, that is a huge loss. That is a lot 
of money. No one is proud of that loss. But I say to the Senator from 
Oklahoma that if he wants to investigate Madison Guaranty for a $46 
million loss, then why do we not go ahead and investigate all of the 
S&L's in the State of Oklahoma that lost 100 times that much? Why do we 
not just include those in the resolution, and investigate those 
criminal referrals, if they were, and all of the activities surrounding 
RTC and the failed S&L's in the State of Oklahoma?
  I think that might be a fair proposition. What is good for the goose 
is good for the gander.
  So if we are going to enlarge the scope, let us go ahead and go full 
blast with it.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was presiding for an hour and listening 
to some of the discussion on the floor. When people talk about minority 
rights in the Senate, I would observe for all who watch the Senate 
proceedings that the minority rights include the ability since last 
Thursday, and now it is Wednesday, to prevent the Senate from doing 
virtually anything. For those who wonder what the Senate is doing, it 
is considering a bill reauthorizing the FAA, which has to do with 
building airports. But is that what we are discussing since last 
Thursday? No, we are not. The minority has the right to do what they 
are doing.
  So when someone stands up and says somehow minority rights have been 
abrogated, I think what a lot of nonsense. The minority rights have not 
been abrogated. We are tied up precisely because they are exercising 
the right they have on the floor to prevent the Senate from moving on 
the bill that is on the floor.
  I said last week--and I think it bears repeating--that we live in a 
time when scandals are jet propelled. Any scandal gets wings of its own 
through the media and through the political system. We have a 
sophisticated political system now in which its participants understand 
it is far easier to motivate people to be against something than for 
something. What is happening--and it is happening with this discussion 
about Whitewater--is that we use careless language; we use innuendo. 
Mark Twain once said, ``A lie travels halfway 'round the world before 
the truth gets its shoes on.''
  I think we ought to figure out what the facts are on Whitewater. We 
have a special counsel appointed, a Republican, investigating 
Whitewater. We have agreed to hold hearings on Whitewater. None of that 
is an issue. That is not what this is about. This is about politics out 
here on the floor of the Senate for 5 days, holding up the important 
business of the Senate.
  Lest anybody wonder, may I remind some of where we are in this 
country? There are 23,000 murders a year; 110,000 rapes in a year; 1.1 
million aggravated assaults in America in a year. We have 10 million 
people out of work and 25 million people living on food stamps. We have 
35 to 40 million people with no health insurance. We have 4 million 
babies born a year in this country, and 1.25 million are born without 
two parents present.
  Does anybody think much about these problems which we face? Or are we 
going to be content to tie this body up in knots over Whitewater?
  I would not encourage those who say, well, Whitewater is unimportant 
and we have too many important things to consider. It is not 
unimportant. But that is not the way it is being treated. We have a 
special prosecutor. And we have agreed to hearings.
  Let us not use Whitewater as a political circus to obscure and delay 
dealing with all of the other issues that confront us in this country. 
Let us get to the facts and get to the bottom of Whitewater--and we 
will, and we should. But let us also get to the business of the U.S. 
Senate in dealing with some of the other crucial problems we face in 
this country.
  I inquire of the Chair, is the vote on hand at 2:30?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield the floor.


                       vote on amendment no. 1783

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on amendment No. 1783 offered by the Senator from South Dakota 
[Mr. Daschle] for the majority leader.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendments 
numbered 1783 and 1785, en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 140 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--44

     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     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
  So the amendment (No. 1783) was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. HEFLIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 1782, As Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on agreeing to amendment numbered 1782, as amended, offered by 
the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato].
  The amendment (No. 1782), as amended, was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1785 to Amendment No. 1784

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on agreeing to amendment numbered 1785 offered by the Senator 
from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] for the majority leader, Mr. Mitchell].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 141 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     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--44

     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     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

       
     Breaux
       
  So the amendment (No. 1785) was agreed to.


                 Vote on Amendment No. 1784, As Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question recurs 
on amendment No. 1784, as amended, offered by the Senator from Alaska 
[Mr. Murkowski].
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1784), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand there are some other items 
about to take place. I will not take long with my colleagues.
  A friend called me last night from Vermont and asked: ``What in 
heaven's name is going on in the U.S. Senate? I watch this march up the 
hill, down the hill, up the hill, down the hill on the same issue over 
and over again.''
  He said does anybody think that they are getting some kind of credit 
with the public by constantly raising the issue of Whitewater when they 
know that there is a special prosecutor looking into this subject, when 
they know there is going to be, by resolution, that we voted 98-0 for 
oversight hearings.
  We are going to have such a hearing. We are going to have such an 
investigation. He said, ``Could it possibly be that there are some who 
do not want you to reach debates on bills involving the airports in the 
United States, appropriations bills, health care, or other issues?''
  He said, ``What in heaven's name--what is this costing?''
  I said, ``Well, actually hundreds of thousands of dollars by the time 
you figure in the cost of everybody from staff to those who run the 
Senate to the printing of the Record to say the same thing over and 
over again.''
  He said, ``Frankly, it makes very little sense.''
  I mention this, Mr. President, because my friend is a Republican and 
a partisan Republican. He cannot see why in heaven's name this constant 
drumbeat on the attack of the President on an issue that is going to be 
determined one way or the other goes on at a time when we ought to be 
carrying out the real business of this country: health care reform; 
vote for it or not. We hear some say they intend to filibuster any kind 
of health care reform. He is frankly very disturbed by this.
  It is kind of manufactured gridlock. He said we may disagree on 
certain issues, and he and I disagree on a lot of issues, but vote them 
up or down. One side wins, they win; one side loses, they lose. But 
this manufactured gridlock is what it is; it is a partisan manufactured 
gridlock and, frankly, in my 20 years here with five different 
Presidents--Republicans and Democrats--with the Senate controlled at 
one time by Democrats and at another time Republicans, I have never 
seen anything like this in 20 years where you have manufactured 
gridlock day after day after day after day.
  We are here to be the conscience of the United States. Being in the 
Senate should be a great honor. We ought to be able to rise above petty 
partisan politics and do the Nation's business. We are given 6-year 
terms. There are only 100 of us to represent 260 million Americans. 
Frankly, to use the Senate not to do the Nation's business but to try 
to score incremental, petty, picayune, partisan points does nobody any 
good. It does not do the Senate good. It does not do the country good. 
We ought to stop this baloney and get on with the Nation's business. I 
have respect for the special prosecutor, a well-known Republican. 
Nobody questions his integrity. And frankly, as a former prosecutor, if 
I was in that position as an investigator, I would not want a 
legislative body muddying up the waters while I am trying to figure out 
what is going on.
  Mr. President, we ought to call it for what it is. It is a partisan 
charade that has gone on, frankly, long enough. And the American people 
ought to ask each one of us which one of us is willing to go forward 
with the Nation's business. Lord knows, there is plenty of that 
business to do.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, who stepped aside 
for me to be recognized, and I yield the floor at this point.


                           Amendment No. 1786

 (Purpose: To require Whitewater hearings to begin no later than July 
                               15, 1994)

  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1786.

  Mr. LOTT. 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, for 
     purposes of conducting such hearings and related activities 
     of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 
     required under this Act, such hearings shall begin on a date 
     no later than July 15, 1994.

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


                Amendment No. 1787 to amendment No. 1786

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

       The Senator from Maine [Mr. Mitchell] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1787 to amendment No. 1786:

  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike the matter proposed and insert the following:
       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, for 
     purposes of conducting such hearings and related activities 
     of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 
     required under this Act, such hearings shall begin on a date 
     no later than July 29, 1994, or within 30 days after the 
     conclusion of the first phase of the independent counsel's 
     investigation, whichever is the earlier.

  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I had discussed privately with the distinguished 
Senator from Mississippi the possibility of a time agreement with 
respect to a vote, and I inquire is the Senator prepared to do that now 
or would he prefer to wait for a moment?
  Mr. LOTT. If I may respond to the majority leader, we do need to make 
just a couple checks. I think that is a reasonable time. As I 
indicated, I would be happy to agree to that. I think 4:15 would be 
fine. But we would like to make a couple checks, and maybe we could 
make that request in just a few minutes.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. A question was asked, what are we doing here? I think that 
is a legitimate question. I would like to know that. I do not think it 
is necessary for us to be here having these amendments one after 
another. What we want is a reasonable agreement of how and when 
hearings will go forward on the so-called Whitewater matter. That is 
what the Senate voted on March 17, 98 to 0. We said we would have 
hearings and that our leaders would meet, respective leaders of our two 
parties, and try to work out the details.
  Well, they did, over a long period of time, but no agreement was 
reached. No agreement was reached over, I guess, approximately 100 
days. That is how we got to this point. In fact, I guess you could say 
that something has already been accomplished in that there will be some 
kind of hearings based on what Senator Mitchell offered and on what the 
Senate voted. But I am not sure there would really be any hearings 
under the resolution passed. We cannot participate in a charade, a 
sham, that so tightly constricts what the scope of these hearings would 
be, so limits who the witnesses could be, so compacts the time that 
would be available for these hearings. That is not a logical solution.
  I agree we should not be here. Our two respected leaders should get 
together off the floor of the Senate and come to an agreement with 
which we all can live. It would be very easy. I suspect there are a lot 
of Senators on both sides of the aisle who are scratching their heads 
thinking, yes, I think maybe they could come to some agreement.
  Now, I do not propose this as a solution, and I know there are a lot 
of ramifications involved, and I realize there are some rights that 
Republicans would like to have that are just fundamentally not going to 
be given to us, but could we at least agree on a couple of things? 
Could we at least agree that the scope has to be broader than the very 
narrow three points included in the majority leader's resolution? We 
have talked about this a great deal, but it limits what the hearing 
could do to only three areas: Communication between officials of the 
White House and the Department of Treasury or the Resolution Trust 
Corporation relating to the Whitewater Development Corporation and the 
Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association. That is (A). (B), the Park 
Service Police investigation into the death of the White House deputy 
counsel Vincent Foster. And (C), 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.
  That is it. The argument would be, well, that is all the special 
investigator or prosecutor, Mr. Fiske, is working on now and we could 
not get into these other matters because at some subsequent point he 
may get in some of these other matters. Maybe he will be through with 
these three and we could have a very tight, limited, narrow hearing on 
just these points because maybe he will be doing some other things and 
we will not want to in any way get in his hair with his investigation.
  Time and time and time again the Congress has summarily rejected that 
sort of thing. We have had and we could have a hearing that would not 
interfere with Mr. Fiske's investigation. There are many areas that 
could be covered. He has already specified--in an earlier vote today--
on getting into the question of the cattle futures investment by the 
First Lady. He has indicated he was not going to be investigating that.
  It would be OK if some legitimate questions were asked about that. 
But, oh, no, the majority said you cannot ask questions about that. 
Just now the Murkowski amendment--it looks to me like his amendment 
which was once again defeated basically on a party line vote--clearly, 
it looks to me like what he was asking for was covered under the 
resolution we passed March 1994, March 17, 1994. That resolution said 
98-0 that leaders would get together on appropriate timetable 
procedures and forum for an appropriate congressional oversight 
including hearings on all matters related to Madison Guaranty Savings & 
Loan Association, Whitewater Development Corp., and Capital Management 
Services, Inc.--``all'' matters related to, not so tightly defined in 
scope as those in the majority leader's resolution.
  Senator Murkowski had an amendment that would authorize hearings on 
the Resolution Trust Corporation's internal handling of the criminal 
referrals concerning Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association, 
clearly, within the scope of what the resolution said we passed on 
March 17, 1994, 98-0. Should we not at least be able to or are we not 
expected to ask questions about what happened to criminal referrals? 
Why would they be dealt with over weeks and months? At a minimum, we 
should be allowed to do that. But, no, no, the Senate is not inclined 
to go along with that either.
  So leaders clearly have not reached an agreement with regard to 
scope. This has got to be greatly expanded. We are dealing with grown 
men and women here, my colleagues. The Banking Committee or whatever 
respective committee will do a responsible, fair, and reasonable job. I 
am astounded that we would say in the Senate that we are going to limit 
it to only one committee. What about the jurisdiction of the 
Agriculture Committee? What about the jurisdiction of the Small 
Business Administration Committee?
  There have been allegations--mind you, only allegations--but 
allegations which should, must, and will be investigated in hearings at 
one committee or another. But are we all just abdicating our 
constitutional responsibility? No hearings in the Small Business 
Committee, no hearings in the Agriculture Committee, no hearings, no 
hearings on Whitewater anywhere but in Banking, and, oh, by the way, 
only in these three narrow areas?
  The American people see through this. This is a stonewall. This is a 
requiem for a stonewall. This is how you design in advance the death 
music of a hearing. That is what is involved here. This is an effort to 
guarantee that there will never be full hearings into the Whitewater-
related matters. So far it has been be successful.
  But surely leaders could get together and say, look, this scope is 
too narrow. It will take time to get into it. You cannot begin a 
hearing--you cannot say we are going to have a resolution passed today, 
we will begin it next week. It takes time to get into it. You have to 
have staff. You have to talk to Fiske. You have to get a lot of 
investigation, a lot of paperwork. It takes time. But you have to get 
started. We are not started.
  Expand the scope, No. 1.
  No. 2, allow enough time for a somewhat reasonable job to be done. 
This resolution does not do that. It does not. It is a prescription for 
the death of a very brief hearing.
  As I understand the language in the leader's resolution that passed--
it was added to this bill--on the timing, this is what it says:

       The hearings authorized by this title shall begin on a date 
     determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the 
     minority leader, but no later than the earlier of July 29, 
     1994, or within 30 days after the conclusion of the first 
     phase of the independent counsel's investigation.

  I think what that says is maybe sometime between June 29 and, the 
truth of the matter is, August 1 these hearings will occur. You might 
say, wait a minute. It says July 29. Let us just look at July. July 29, 
red letter day under this resolution. It is a Friday. How many here 
think that we will begin hearings on a matter of this importance on a 
Friday? It is not going to happen.
  I heard it used a couple of days ago, I believe on the floor of the 
Senate: Well, it would begin not later than July 30. A Saturday? When 
is the last time you remember a Senate committee having a major hearing 
on Saturday? Maybe they did during the October Surprise--that was 
important--or Iran-Contra. But that is not very likely.
  What you are really talking about is August 1. That is the goal. That 
is the plan. These hearings will begin, if ever at all, on a very 
limited scope on August 1. So I will come back to that in a moment.
  The leader might say, well, maybe it appears that Mr. Fiske is 
getting at the end of this phase of the investigation. He is taking 
sworn testimony from the President and the First Lady. And it looks 
like maybe he is wrapping it up. Maybe he will wrap it up by, I do not 
know, another week are or so. Then within 30 days after that, let us 
just say maybe he wraps it up next week, the 22d or the 24th. I guess 
conceivably you could get to the hearings sometime around the 25th or 
26th of July. I think it is very unclear. I mean Mr. Fiske is taking 
his time. That is the way it should be. He has a job, an important job, 
a serious job. We do not want to rush him too much. But we have a job 
to do, too. We can do our job without interfering with his job.
  But if the leaders would sit down and agree to a reasonable amount of 
scope and for an earlier time for this matter to begin, we could get an 
agreement that would be acceptable, we could go forward with the 
hearings, and we would go forward with this bill.
  But it has gone on too long now. I fear that the true intent is to 
have no real hearings, only a little 2-week period on phase 1. And the 
truth of the matter is we will not get to the second phase of the 
hearings. I will talk about that with the use of calendar here in a 
minute.
  Let me quote from a great American with regard to another hearing but 
one that I think is applicable here. Upholding a standard of 
congressional hearings that are thorough and fair is not new. When the 
hearings were held on Iran-Contra, this is what Senator Mitchell, the 
majority leader said:

       We have a solemn responsibility to present all the facts, 
     to bring the full truth to the American people as thoroughly 
     and as fairly and as promptly as possible. It is now time to 
     begin the process for laying the facts before the American 
     people. If when we finish these facts and these hearings they 
     know the truth, we will have been successful.
  I think that applies here. We have been dithering around on this for 
months now. Nothing has happened--no hearings, even very few normal 
oversight hearings. It is time--now, not in 6 weeks--to begin the 
process of laying the facts before the American people. I really think 
the President is entitled to that. Let us get this matter investigated 
and get it over with.
  If we finish the hearings and the American people know the truth, 
then we will have been successful. We have a constitutional 
responsibility to go forward with this, and we have not been doing it.
  My amendment is very simple. It would just require Whitewater 
hearings to begin no later than July 15, 1994. Why can the leaders not 
get together and agree? That is the reason we are going through this 
exercise, because they will not come to a reasonable, responsible 
agreement. They could end this any time they want to, if they will get 
together and make that decision. Let me go back over the calendar and 
make my point about what is really going on here.
  This is not a new issue. Whitewater and all of its tentacles has been 
talked about, discussed; the American people have heard a lot about it. 
Whitewater has become a watchword for a lot of things not even in 
Whitewater. It has been around a long time. Under pressure, the Senate 
did vote on the resolution March 17 and said we were going to have 
hearings on all related matters, and our leaders were going to get 
together and agree on procedures, time, and so forth, and the committee 
will do it. It was 98-0.
  What happened after that? The leaders, I guess, talked a little bit 
and exchanged some letters. I do not know what they said. It is not my 
place to know. I am sure they were working in good faith but just could 
not come to an agreement. So the rest of March went by.
  April. Nothing. No red-letter days in April, no agreement, nothing.
  May. No agreement.
  By the way, for those saying this is interfering with the business of 
the country, we were working all along. The Senate has not been doing 
anything on Whitewater hearings. We have been having legislation right 
along. But again, in May, no agreement.
  Finally, in frustration, the ranking Republican on the Banking 
Committee said, ``We have to bring this thing to a head. There has to 
be an agreement.'' That is why we are right here on June 15. It has 
been 3 months since that vote of 98-0--March, April, May, and halfway 
through June. Nothing is scheduled in June. No hearings. No preliminary 
preparation. No staff arrangements. No hearing room. No hearings--that 
is the plan--or very limited ones.
  So are we finally going to do something? Well, we will have the 
Fourth of July work period. We will all be home for our Fourth of July 
events.
  Finally, it may be earlier, but not later than July 29 when the 
hearings will begin. That is the end of the month of July, 6 weeks from 
now--6 weeks from now--they will supposedly start to get ready, or 
maybe they will begin hearings. Maybe Fiske will have gotten through 
earlier and they will have started preparations. But my guess is that 
there will be no real hearings before the week of August 1. That is 
very significant. Not only have we now compressed the scope to three 
narrow areas; we are now compressing the schedule to no more than 10 
days. Maybe you can say 2 weeks, but the truth of the matter is it 
would be the 1st through the 5th and 8th through the 12th--2 weeks, a 
very limited, narrow scope, very little time to prepare for getting 
into the serious questions that are hanging out there as allegations. 
And then on August 12, the Senate, the Congress, will go out for the 
August recess period.
  We will be out the rest of August, and the first 11 days of 
September. Supposing we are going to come back in on the 12th, but we 
have a religious holiday on the 15th, so it is going to be pretty hard 
to see much happening in there. And so you only have 3 weeks before we 
are scheduled to adjourn for the year for the elections. So even if 
they were going to have some more hearings after the August recess 
period, again it is limited to probably somewhere around 3 weeks. And 
then what happens? That is it. Elections are the 8th. Are we going to 
have a lame duck session and come back to have hearings on Whitewater? 
I do not think so.
  And then also the majority leader is going on his great reward. He 
will not be here next year. When he said yesterday, well, look, this is 
just the first round, it is limited in scope and it will only be these 
three areas. So we will not interfere with Fiske, and we can have 
hearings limited in those three areas, and after that, we will have a 
second round of hearings.
  When? When are we going to do it? Is the second round going to come 
in September? If it is, that means that the first round will have been 
completed in only 10 days, the first 2 weeks in August. So the idea is 
to do that in 2 weeks there, and to have a second round when Mr. Fiske 
completes all of the rest of his work. Will he be through in September? 
If he is not, we are not going to have a second round, not this year. 
And the majority leader will be gone next year--I am sure having a 
grand time doing a great job at whatever he is doing.
  So I fear that this is a requiem for the death of real hearings. This 
is a prescription for 2 short weeks of limited scope, and that is it. 
Will we ever get to the second round? Will there ever be full, complete 
hearings on a number of other related matters, as described in the 
resolution that was passed March 17? I do not think so.
  Believe me, I am not advocating this, but I look at the calendar and 
the resolution, and I do not see how they fit, how we can do it. We 
have all these issues the leader wants us to take up. We have five or 
six appropriations bills that we need to do before the Fourth of July 
period; we have striker replacement legislation pending; we have a 
telecommunications bill pending; we have a water resources bill 
pending; we have defense authorization pending; we have health care and 
welfare, all of them. They are good and important issues that we ought 
to take up and get done. In fact, some of them we must get done. All of 
the appropriations bills and defense authorization and, hopefully, a 
number of others.
  So I do not see how it happens. That is why I offered my resolution. 
I hope that the leader will, in his generosity--and he is always very 
cooperative, and I mean that sincerely--say that is not a bad idea. Let 
us just back it up a couple weeks and get the ball rolling. The 
chairman of the Banking Committee and the ranking member can tell you 
that you could not start from ground zero in a week or two. With the 
resolution we pass and the narrow scope, nothing is going to happen. It 
would be such a restricted sham of an exercise, people are not going to 
participate, because they know how restricted and how limited it really 
is.
  So could we not at least back it up a couple of weeks? Just a couple 
of weeks. I am not asking for the Moon. I am just asking for instead of 
2 weeks right before the August recess, right when we always break out 
in a sweat because it is hot and humid outside, but also because we 
have a lot to do and little time to do it, with appropriations bills 
one right after the other, let us back it up to the 15th of July.
  That would give us this 2 weeks in late July and the first 2 weeks in 
August for the first phase, but a first phase certainly broader than 
what is in this limited resolution we have.
  Now, I hope there will be a second phase. Perhaps that could come in 
September. Maybe we could go ahead and agree on that. We will have the 
first phase the last 2 weeks in July and the first 2 weeks in August, 
and we would go to the second phase as soon as we come back in 
September.
  But that is all I am really asking. When I look at the resolution and 
I look at the calendar, it is obvious to me what is afoot here. Limit 
the scope, limit the time, and hope that the issue will just die and 
wither away.
  We do have a constitutional responsibility. The time is now to begin 
to exercise it. I think it ought to begin, really, June 15, today, June 
15. But let us give it a month to get ready, to get the leaders to 
agree on all the details, to let the committee begin to get their staff 
lined up, and to allow Mr. Fiske more time to wrap his work up and 
report. So I am trying to be reasonable and fair, but to guarantee we 
have at least a month to work on this issue.
  Again, I invite the distinguished majority leader and the Republican 
leader to take this cup from our lips, get together, and come to an 
agreement. Let us do this thing. Let us do it now. Let us not wait a 
month or 2 months or forever.
  Mr. President, I see the leader is on his feet, and I am sure he has 
lots he would like to respond to, so I will yield the floor at this 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, the Senator from Mississippi has spoken 
for 25 minutes and has had no response from our side. If we were to 
have a vote at, say, 4:20, may I ask that that time be divided, 8 more 
minutes to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi and 20 minutes on 
our side, giving him a total of 33 minutes and us a total of 20 
minutes?
  Mr. LOTT. That sounds all right. We have checked and there is no 
objection to getting the vote at a specified time. I think 4:20 would 
be fine.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that a vote 
on the Mitchell amendment now pending occur at 4:20 p.m.; and that 
immediately following that vote, without any intervening action or 
debate, a vote occur on the underlying amendment, as amended, if 
amended; and that the time between now and then be divided, 8 minutes 
under the control of the Senator from Mississippi and 20 minutes under 
my control or that of my designee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, Senators should be aware, and I ask the 
staffs on both sides to notify Senators' offices, that a vote will 
occur at 4:20.
  Mr. President, I would like to make a few comments in response to the 
Senator's remarks, which I found very interesting.
  The first point to make is that all of this supposed rush to get 
hearings by the Republican Senators is inconsistent with the delaying 
tactics they are using. We were ready to vote on this matter last 
Thursday, and although the Republican Senators proclaimed loudly that 
they want to have a vote on Whitewater and they want to have hearings 
on Whitewater, they prevented a vote from occurring for 5 days. If they 
had not engaged in the delaying tactics in which they are now engaging, 
we could have voted on this matter last Thursday and the Banking 
Committee could be getting ready for hearings. They would have been 
under instructions to do that which the Senator from Mississippi says 
he wants them to do, or that which he is preventing them from doing by 
participating in what is obviously a filibuster by amendment.

  So what we have on the one hand is a group of Republican Senators 
saying over and over again they want to have hearings on Whitewater, 
and then doing everything possible to prevent the passage of the 
legislation that would permit the preparation for the hearings and 
require the hearings to be held.
  Why is that, one would ask? Why would Senators say one thing and do 
another?
  That is because what they say is not what they really want. They are 
not interested in hearings. They are not interested in serious 
investigation. They are interested in a forum to attack the President 
and Mrs. Clinton. They are interested in creating a political circus to 
inflict as much political damage as they can on the President and the 
First Lady of the United States.
  The American people know that. The polls show consistently that more 
than two-thirds of Americans, as many as 70 percent, believe that the 
Republicans are doing this for political purposes. There is no serious 
intent here, and what is happening in the last 5 days demonstrates 
that. We have had 5 votes spread over a couple of days on the same 
issue over and over and over again, trying to delay that which they say 
they want done.
  Now, I listened with amusement to the remarks of the Senator from 
Mississippi about the upcoming recess. A neutral observer might have 
understood that to be a complaint about so many recesses. But from my 
experience, the Senator from Mississippi has been a very vigorous 
critic whenever I have suggested delaying recesses or staying in 
session during otherwise scheduled recess periods to do the business 
before us. And so we can get this done in a proper, orderly way, if our 
Republican colleagues will stop stalling, let us have a vote. Let us 
get the hearings on track.
  On March 17, the Senate voted 98 to 0 to conduct hearings in such a 
manner. It said:

       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.

  That is what the timing in our resolution does. It sets up the 
hearings so that they will occur in a manner not to interfere with the 
special counsel's ongoing investigation.
  We have been advised that the special counsel expects to complete his 
investigation in the first phase this month. So what our resolution 
provides is that the hearings in the Banking Committee will begin 
within 30 days after the special counsel completes his investigation 
but, in any event, no later than July 29.
  So the hearings will occur, if our Republican colleagues will stop 
stalling and let us vote on a resolution that will direct the hearings 
to occur. But every American should understand that the very people who 
are saying let us begin the hearings are the people who are preventing 
us from voting on a measure to require hearings. In other words, their 
words are inconsistent with their deeds. What they are saying is the 
opposite of what they are doing.
  Of course, that is what has occurred throughout this process. First, 
they called for the appointment of a special counsel, and a special 
counsel was appointed. The special counsel is a Republican, a lifelong 
Republican, of high integrity and great experience. Five minutes after 
he was appointed, they reversed their field and began demanding a 
congressional hearing, even though the special counsel, appointed upon 
their request, himself a Republican, requested that hearings not be 
held at a time and under circumstances which would undermine his 
investigation.
  But, once again, one would ask how is it our colleagues will take one 
position 1 day and then another position another day? The reason is 
obvious: That there is no consistent principle behind what they are 
doing. All they have in mind is to damage the President and the First 
Lady of the United States. That is the only objective. And so, if it 
takes a zig to bash the President, they will zig. If it takes a zag to 
bash the President, they will zag. If it takes a flip to bash the 
President, they will flip. If it takes a flop to bash the President, 
they will flop. Zig and zag, flip and flop, so long as they can bash 
the President; bash the First Lady; try to inflict damage upon them.
  That is what is going on here. The American people know it, and it is 
obvious a clear majority of the Senate knows it.
  This amendment, I say to my colleague with all due respect, is 
inconsequential. The hearings are going to begin sometime in July, and 
they are going to begin hopefully after the special counsel has 
completed an investigation, and with time for the Banking Committee to 
prepare.
  But, I will say again to my colleagues, we need to pass the 
resolution to give direction and authority to the Banking Committee to 
conduct the hearings. And the longer our Republican colleagues stall 
and obstruct and delay, as they are now doing, the less time the 
Banking Committee will have to prepare for the hearings that our 
colleagues say they want.
  So what they should do is to stop the delay; stop the obstruction; 
stop acting in a manner inconsistent with their words. Let us vote on 
this; let us pass it; and let us tell the Banking Committee to get 
going to prepare for these hearings.
  That is the obvious course. But, of course, that is not the political 
course of action and, therefore, I do not expect my colleagues to leap 
to agreement with the suggestion.
  But, we have already voted five times on the same issue. So there is 
no reason why we cannot vote another five times on the same issue if 
that somehow pleases our colleagues or makes them think that they are 
gaining some kind of a political advantage here.
  We will just keep going. We are going to stay steady on course. We 
are going to get through this. We are going to pass the airport 
improvements bill. I know my friend from Kentucky, the manager of that 
bill, would like to see it passed and may have a few words on that. We 
will stay in session tonight for as long as it takes to get it done.
  I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to comment further on some of 
the remarks of the distinguished leader.
  First of all, I heard it several times stated that, ``Oh, it was just 
Republican Senators that called for a special counsel.''
  Yes, Republican Senators did, a number of them. But I was there. I 
remember also some Democratic Senators said that they thought there 
should be a special counsel. I remember specifically the Senator from 
New York, Senator Moynihan, on one of the Sunday morning talk shows 
said he thought absolutely we should have one. I could be wrong, but I 
thought the Senator from New Jersey made a similar call.
  So it was not just a partisan call. Although the leader has said 
several times it was Republican Senators that called for a special 
counsel, well, yes; so did some Democrats. But there was no deal there 
that if you had a special counsel that the Congress would then 
abdicate, totally abdicate, its responsibility, its role, to have 
appropriate hearings into a number of questions that have been raised.
  Now, as far as bashing the President and the First Lady, you have not 
heard me say anything against either one of them.
  All I am saying is that there should be a hearing, a fair, open, 
complete hearing and get this matter behind us.
  I remember other hearings. I remember how quickly we had complete, 
total, full hearings on Watergate, Irangate, the October Surprise. Then 
it was fine to go forward and have these complete hearings. But now, 
``Oh, wait a minute here. We don't want to have complete hearings this 
time.''
  Now it is political. Boy, I have heard it all. It is political 
because we say that there ought to be some hearings, but it was not 
political all the hearings we have had over the past 20 years, 
especially that ridiculous thing we had called October Surprise in 
1992. That was the most blatant, partisan political thing I ever saw in 
my life.
  So, now the shoe is on the other foot. When we say we ought to have 
full, open, fair hearings, ``Oh, you're political.''
  The temerity of the assertion that it is political when we say let us 
have hearings--not an inquisition, not a trial, but hearings--on laws 
that may have been broken, agencies or departments that may have been 
abused.
  We are not alleging who might have done that. But we are saying that 
there are so many questions out there, so many violations that have 
been suggested, that they should go forward.
  So, I do not believe the American people are going to buy this deal 
that now it is political, but all these other hearings, oh, they were 
not political. Baloney.
  Now, look. We may be a little slow. Just because you got the cheese 
sitting out there in the trap saying, ``Come on, let's us go forward; 
let's have the hearing; come on in here,'' you do not think we are 
going to look at the trap.
  Here is the trap--a mechanism that guarantees there will not be real 
full hearings. That is the trap.
  The leader says, ``Oh, yes, you Republicans, if you really want a 
hearing, let us have a hearing. But we are not going to allow but one 
committee to be involved. No extra staff, no subcommittee involvement, 
no Senators from other committees with related jurisdiction, no other 
committee with jurisdiction, one committee, the Banking Committee, that 
is all. And we are going to fix it where, more than likely, it is going 
to last 2 weeks, maybe. And we are going to limit the scope to three 
narrow slivers of jurisdiction.''
  My colleagues, this is a guarantee that there will be no real 
hearings. That is what is involved here. Why, this is a total sham, and 
we know it.
  That is why I keep urging the leaders to get together and come up 
with a serious agreement that we can go forward with. We are not going 
to walk into this trap and be told, ``Oh, we will have a hearing, but 
you are going to do it our way and that is all.''
  We cannot even call witnesses. Well, you say, oh, well, Republicans 
have never been given the ability to call witnesses, to have subpoena 
power. How in the world are we ever going to get our witnesses before 
the committee? Do you think the majority is going to give it to us? Do 
you think the chairman is going to give it to us? No.
  I will tell you one other fundamental difference. This time the White 
House, where the allegations are lodged, and the House and the Senate 
are controlled for the first time in a long time, except for the 4 
years in the late 1970's, by the same party.
  How do you get a full, fair investigation if you cannot even subpoena 
witnesses? None. Senator D'Amato will not be able to call any 
witnesses. Who believes that? Is this going to a fair hearing? Is this 
going to a real hearing? Absolutely not.
  We want to pass this bill. We want to have a fair hearing. We are 
willing to make a reasonable agreement. Let us do it.
  The allegation is made that we do not want real hearings--we want a 
circus. I think our integrity is questioned here.
  And do not question the motives for trying to block total, fair, and 
open hearings.
  I know what is going on. But if we try to get hearings that are 
structured in such a way that we could get in all the scope of what is 
involved in this issue and call witnesses and have adequate time for 
the hearings--oh, you want to make it a circus.
  I agree. Let us begin the hearings now. There is nothing to prevent 
the committee from going ahead right now and getting ready for these 
hearings. If they really want to have full-blown hearings, they could 
be doing that while we debate this issue.
  This is a process to guarantee that there are not real hearings. 
There should be an agreement on that.
  We are not going to give up on this issue. We have no choice. We 
cannot agree to hearings that will not be hearings, that will be a 
total sham.
  In the alternative, if we do not use whatever mechanisms we have to 
try to get a reasonable, responsible agreement, once again, we are 
abdicating our responsibility.
  I urge my colleagues to talk to our leaders and let us get a real 
hearing agreed to. I think we can do that. And then we can get on with 
the other business.
  But we are using this vehicle because we have no other. This is the 
only way we can get a hearing. This is the only way we can point out to 
the American people that there will never be real hearings.
  And there are a lot of people--I mean, I do not know exactly what the 
polling numbers are on it; I am not alleging that you have people 
running all over our State saying, you know, you must have hearings on 
this--but there are a lot of people that want to know what really is 
going on.
  My question is: What is going to be the process to find out and when 
will it be? It will not be this year under this process.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized. The 
Senator has 10 minutes and 54 seconds.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I am not a lawyer and I take the advice of 
my father that a little knowledge of the law is dangerous, so get you a 
good lawyer and stay with him.
  That is what I thought occurred when Mr. Fiske was named as the 
special counsel. I did not know Mr. Fiske. I know a little bit more 
about him today than I did early on. But I could not understand the 
euphoria from my Republican colleagues about the appointment. They beat 
their chests. What a great fellow he was.
  Now they have a special counsel, he is one of theirs, he is a 
Republican. We found that he was fair, a lot of integrity, and that was 
significant, I think. But Mr. Fiske's approval came basically from the 
Republican side of the aisle. So I felt maybe we had been reasonably 
fair in the selection of the special counsel.
  I do not think anyone yet has said Mr. Fiske is not a good attorney, 
not a good prosecutor, not a man of integrity. All those things he is.
  That got me back to what my dad told me: Get a good lawyer and stay 
with him.
  So now we have Mr. Fiske attempting to do the kind of job that he was 
requested to do and he would be expected to do by all of us. We, those 
Members in the leadership, discussed with Mr. Fiske--regarding his 
ability to do the right thing to complete the job in the manner that 
would be expected of him--on how best to proceed.
  Mr. Fiske suggested that the Senate not hold hearings, nor the House 
hold hearings, until such time as he could complete phases of his 
investigation. And only when he completed a phase would he suggest that 
we hold hearings because it would be detrimental to him in his process. 
With 23 FBI agents and I do not know how many lawyers working to do all 
of this, that it would be detrimental to his ongoing investigation if 
we brought witnesses into the hearing room and to question them 
publicly before he had a chance to complete his job.
  That is all he has ever asked. In spite of that, the man who was 
approved by my colleagues on the other side, a man who has a wonderful 
reputation of being able to do a thorough and good job, his opportunity 
is now being jeopardized by those who are trying to make political 
capital.
  Do not tell me you are not trying to damage the President and First 
Lady. You say I know what is going on. We know what is going on, too. 
That makes both sides know what is going on, so that kind of makes us 
equal.
  But the process that we have now guarantees hearings based on the 
recommendation of the special counsel that was approved by the 
Republican side of the aisle. What is wrong with that? I do not think 
anything. We asked for a reasonable, responsible agreement. I think the 
special counsel has to be a part of that agreement. He has made his 
views known--privately and publicly: Do not question the witnesses in 
public before I have an opportunity. Do not delve into areas until I 
complete my job, because when I complete it, I want it to be a good 
one, I do not want it to be jeopardized. And now we are trying to 
jeopardize it.
  But we have before the Senate a procedure to guarantee hearings. If 
he says tomorrow--tomorrow is the 16th--that he is completed with this 
phase and you can go and have your hearings in that area, that means it 
will be somewhat earlier, it will be the 16th of July instead of the 
29th. So it could come sooner than later.
  What we are hearing now is speculation--his interpretation, my 
interpretation. We are asking for a hearing in conformance with the 
special counsel's request. I think that is a fair way to do it, because 
we see what we did in previous major open hearings; immunity was given 
and those who were convicted, by a technicality are not serving their 
convictions. So we have to be careful, if there are to be convictions, 
if there are to be trials, that we do not jeopardize the ability to do 
it.
  Mr. President, I am chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee on the 
Committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation. My colleague from 
Mississippi is on that committee. Last November we reported out of that 
committee an Airport Improvement Reauthorization bill for 3 years. For 
the last 8 months I have been trying to work out the ability to bring 
that piece of legislation to the Senate floor and get it passed. Many 
of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been accommodated in 
that bill so we might do what we feel is in the best interests of 
everybody. Sure, there are going to be some things some people do not 
agree with. We are not perfect, so therefore we do not produce perfect 
products. There is only one person who is perfect and we try to be like 
him.

  So here we stand now for 5 days, delaying me from getting this bill 
passed. I had to introduce an interim piece of legislation so we could 
get funding to the States for their airport improvements so we would 
not lose a construction season. We worked closely with the presiding 
officer, the distinguished Senator from Colorado. We were able to work 
out, in this bill, something that has been going on for 4 years. Only 
because he was willing to sit down--and others--do we have an agreement 
in this bill.
  It has been held up. Last year the State of New York, for instance, 
got $81 million based on Airport Improvement Trust Funds on their 
allocations and discretionary funding. When this bill passes I have to 
take it to conference with the House, get it back, get it passed and to 
the President so we do not lose the rest of the construction season.
  Already this year under the interim bill that expires June 30, New 
York has received $12.5 million. I picked out New York because the 
propounding of these major amendments have been carried on by the 
distinguished Senator from New York. The entitlements that New York 
will have are now held in abeyance: $25 million this year, $25 million 
next year, and $25 million the next year. They are being held up. And 
the good citizens of New York, who are now paying their taxes, cannot 
get their money to improve their economic development because we are 
here arguing about Whitewater, whether we have a hearing on July 15 or 
July 30. And we are holding up this bill.
  There are only three or four more amendments before I can get the 
bill passed. I have labored hard, Mr. President, and others on my 
subcommittee and the full committee have labored hard to try to make 
things work. But we run into something called Whitewater, that does not 
amount to a hill of beans to the people wanting new airports in their 
community or an expansion of their airport or to do the things that are 
in the best interests of this country and what the flying passengers in 
this country have paid for. So now they are being held up.
  I do not know what else to do. They keep bringing up these 
amendments. There has not been but one vote change in the last five or 
six votes, and that was because one Senator was necessarily absent. He 
was not here, today he is back, and the votes have not changed one 
iota. And they are not going to change.
  Whatever it takes, we will work it through. But I want you to know, 
and I want my colleagues to know, that they are holding up an important 
bill. If you hold it up much longer I have to have another interim 
piece of legislation to try to help the States so they will not lose 
this construction season as it relates to their airport improvements.
  Airports may not be too important to people. Maybe political damage 
to the President and the First Lady is more important than doing things 
for your States. Maybe that is true. But I just want you to know I have 
worked hard and I want this bill passed. If it takes all night tonight, 
all day tomorrow, all night tomorrow night, all day Friday, all night 
Friday night, all day Saturday--I am ready to stay. If they take my 
advice, I would say get out the cots and the blankets because it is 
about time we stopped these charades and we stayed here until we got it 
done.
  I do not imagine I will prevail, but if I had my way about it, we 
would stay here until we finished it. Maybe that is the reason they did 
not want me over here leading this side. I would just say, ``Let's get 
the cots out.'' And get the cots out we will, if I have something to do 
with it, and we will get this thing over with. One of these days they 
will want to go home, and we will just stay here until it is over.
  Mr. President, I see you picking up the gavel and time is about to 
expire. But I wanted you to know that there is more here than 
Whitewater amendments that is the same vote time after time after time. 
There is an underlying bill that is being delayed, and construction and 
help for all 50 States in this bill has already been delayed 5 days.
  I yield the floor.


            vote on amendment no. 1787 to amendment no. 1786

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 4:20 
p.m. having arrived, the question occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 
1787, offered by the majority leader.
  Mr. FORD. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
No. 1787. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 142 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--44

     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     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
  So the amendment (No. 1787) was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment numbered 1786, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 1786) was agreed to.

                          ____________________