[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. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1788

 (Purpose: To authorize hearings on the independence of the Resolution 
    Trust Corporation, Federal banking agencies, and other Federal 
regulatory agencies, including any improper contacts among officials of 
 the White House, the Department of the Treasury, the Resolution Trust 
 Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and any other Federal 
                                agency)

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1788.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs shall 
     conduct an investigation into, study of, and hearings on, all 
     matters which have any tendency to reveal the full facts 
     about the independence of the Resolution Trust Corporation, 
     Federal banking agencies, and other Federal regulatory 
     agencies, including any improper contacts among officials of 
     the White House, the Department of the Treasury, the 
     Resolution Trust Corporation, the Office of Thrift 
     Supervision, and any other Federal agency.


               Amendment No. 1789, to Amendment No. 1788

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Mr. Mitchell] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1789 to amendment No. 1788.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In lieu of the matter proposed insert the following:
       (1) Additional Hearings: In the fulfillment of the Senate's 
     constitutional oversight role, additional hearings on the 
     matters identified in the resolution passed by the Senate by 
     a vote of 98-0 on March 17, 1994 should be authorized as 
     appropriate under, and in accordance with, the provisions of 
     that resolution.
       Any additional hearings should be structured and sequenced 
     in such a manner that in the judgment of the two Leaders they 
     would not interfere with the ongoing investigation of Special 
     Counsel Robert B. Fiske, Jr.

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, may I inquire of the distinguished 
Senator from Pennsylvania, through the Chair, whether it is agreeable 
to have a time limitation for debate on the amendments just offered and 
a vote on the second-degree amendment?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would be glad to enter into a time 
agreement.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Might I suggest 5:30?
  Mr. SPECTER. That is acceptable to this Senator.


                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote on 
the pending Mitchell amendment occur at 5:30 p.m. today, and that the 
time between now and then be equally----
  Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, I have been advised that 
there may be a problem on our side.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I withdraw my request, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there now 
be 45 minutes for debate on the amendments offered by Senator Specter 
and myself, equally divided between Senator Specter and myself; that at 
the conclusion of that debate, the two amendments be set aside and that 
Senator Bond or his designee be recognized to offer an amendment; that 
immediately upon the reporting of Senator Bond's amendment, I be 
recognized to offer a second-degree amendment to that amendment, and 
that there then be 45 minutes for debate on those two amendments, 
equally divided and under the control of Senator Bond or his designee 
and myself; that at the conclusion of that time, or rather, that at 6 
p.m. the Senate vote on the pending Mitchell amendment in the second 
degree to the Specter amendment; that following disposition of that 
amendment without any intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed 
to vote on the Specter amendment, as amended, if amended; that upon 
disposition of the Specter amendment, that the Senate then without any 
intervening action or debate vote on the then-pending 
Mitchell amendment to the Bond amendment; that upon the disposition of 
that amendment, the Senate proceed to the disposition of the Bond 
amendment, as amended, if amended, again without any intervening action 
or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, then for the information of Senators, 
there will now be a period of 45 minutes for debate on the amendments 
offered by Senator Specter and myself at which time that will be set 
aside. Senator Bond or his designee will then offer another amendment. 
I will then offer a second degree to that. Those will be debated for 45 
minutes, and at 6:30 p.m., there will occur two rollcall votes. 
Senators should be prepared for that and should adjust their schedules. 
So there will be two rollcall votes at 6:30 p.m., this evening. There 
will be no rollcall votes between now and then.
  By that time, it is my hope that we will have been able to discuss 
and work out a procedure for the time immediately following those votes 
with respect to the offering of amendments, debate, and votes.
  Madam President, I thank my colleague for his cooperation, and I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, for those who might be watching on C-
SPAN and those in the gallery, you have just heard a unanimous consent-
agreement which predicts a second-degree amendment to the Bond 
amendment. For those who might not understand the legalese of the 
Senate procedure, the distinguished majority leader has already stated 
in advance without having seen the Bond amendment that there will be a 
second-degree amendment to it, which follows the pattern on the second-
degree amendment to my amendment which will, in effect, nullify under 
the majority leader's efforts the thrust of my amendment and what is 
anticipated to be whatever may be in Senator Bond's amendment.
  My amendment is an effort to broaden the scope of the investigation 
into Whitewater to conform with a 98-to-0 vote taken by the Senate in 
March and try to set the stage for an appropriate Senate inquiry into 
what has happened in Whitewater and related matters.

  It is unfortunate that the Senate is now engaged in a series of 
amendments and debates which are highly charged and highly partisan, 
with all the Democrats lining up on one side and all of the Republicans 
lining up on the other side.
  That does not give a very good impression for the American people as 
to what is going on in the U.S. Senate which is touted or perhaps which 
touts itself as the world's greatest deliberative body when there is so 
much of the Nation's business to be accomplished and there appears to 
be a wrangling approach to what is a very, very important matter of 
public policy.
  As I say, I regret that, and we are searching for some way to 
accommodate the public interest in a nonpartisan or bipartisan way to 
get to the underlying facts of Whitewater which everyone concedes is a 
matter which requires a mandate urgently necessary for this 
investigation and congressional hearing, as evidenced by the March vote 
which was all encompassing on a resolution for all matters relating to 
Whitewater.
  And then when Senator D'Amato had offered an amendment with a broad 
sweep, the distinguished majority leader, Senator Mitchell, came back 
with an amendment which was carried on a party-line vote which very 
drastically limits the scope of the Senate inquiry to three very narrow 
items.
  The importance of the congressional inquiry--House inquiry, Senate 
hearings--goes far beyond the import of a grand jury investigation, 
which is now being conducted by independent counsel, also known as the 
special prosecutor, Mr. Fiske.
  The purposes of a grand jury are totally different from a 
congressional inquiry. A grand jury focuses on allegations which may 
lead to indictments on criminal conduct, and those hearings are 
conducted in secret, and they are not available for the public 
interest.
  Contrast that with a Senate inquiry or a House inquiry or a joint 
congressional inquiry which goes into matters in a public way with a 
public disclosure inquiring that the matter of broad public policy and 
broad public policy interests as to what happened on the savings and 
loan investigation, on a savings and loan matter which amounted to 
billions of dollars in losses to the American taxpayers.
  I have offered an amendment today which would broaden the scope of 
what the distinguished majority leader has very narrowly circumscribed 
in the provision of his amendment which is as follows, ``Communications 
between officials of the White House and the Department of Treasury or 
Resolution Trust Corporation relating to the Whitewater Development 
Corporation and the Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association,'' to 
a broader statement to have an inquiry ``into, study of, and hearings 
on all matters which have any tendency to reveal the full facts about 
the independence of the Resolution Trust Corporation, Federal banking 
agencies, and other Federal regulatory agencies, including any improper 
contacts among officials of the White House, the Department of 
Treasury, the Resolution Trust Corporation, the Office of Thrift 
Supervision, and any other Federal agency.''
  The difference in those approaches is obvious on their faces, where 
the amendment that I am offering is much broader and in line with the 
amendment in March which the Senate approved on a 98-to-nothing vote.
  There was disclosed in the press in late February or early March the 
details of a meeting between members of the White House staff and 
officers of the Resolution Trust Corporation, which led me to write to 
the President asking him to terminate the employment of the individuals 
who were involved in those discussions unless his personal inquiry 
satisfied the President, as I say, personally that there was no 
impropriety involved, and if he made that determination, then I asked 
the President to make a disclosure as to what those extenuating and 
exonerating facts should be.
  When the RTC and officials of the Department of Treasury are involved 
in an investigation, it is absolutely, positively inappropriate for 
them to brief members of the White House staff on that matter. The 
investigators or those privy to an investigation should absolutely not 
have contacts or make disclosures to any individuals who may be the 
subject of an inquiry. That is a very, very basic rule of 
investigations which requires a little elaboration about not talking to 
those who are subject to an investigation because that compromises the 
investigation.
  And it seemed to me that those individuals ought to be summarily 
fired. Before asking the President to summarily fire them, I included 
an escape clause that if he was satisfied that there was some 
extenuating circumstance which exonerated them from what appeared to be 
a total cause for firing, so be it. The President is their chief and if 
he makes that decision and makes a disclosure of his reasons, then we 
would take the matter from there.
  As of this moment, some 3 months later, I have not had any reply to 
my letter of March 3, and later in the course of this amendment, I will 
read the letter and put it into the Record.
  But on the face of this matter, the limitations which are contained 
in the amendment offered by Senator Mitchell are much too restrictive 
on their face, and the broader scope of this amendment I think would 
provide the public with the kind of assurance and confidence that the 
matter would be investigated in an appropriate way.
  On the second-degree amendment offered by the distinguished majority 
leader, it simply says that there will be further inquiry, or may be a 
further inquiry, as the majority leader and the Republican leader may 
agree to. And that says nothing, because without the agreement of the 
majority leader, there is going to be no further inquiry.
  Based upon the scope of the investigation which is contained in his 
amendment, the inquiry is very, very sharply circumscribed as to be 
virtually meaningless. It is for that reason that I have offered this 
amendment.
  I might say, Madam President, I have no illusion about the outcome of 
the vote, considering the party-line result. But, when there is an 
impasse of this sort between the Democrats and the Republicans, this is 
our only course. It is unfortunate that this is tying up an important 
airport bill which really ought to proceed in the public interest and 
be disposed of.
  But the fact is that the only available pressure point for 
Republicans in Washington, DC, today in the Federal Government is the 
ability of 44 Republicans, if we are sufficiently united with 41, to 
stop legislation from moving through this body. I hope that that will 
not be necessary, because gridlock works to the disadvantage of the 
American people and it gives a big black eye to the Senate of the 
United States.
  So it is my hope that, when we discuss these matters, flush them out 
and talk about the scope of the investigation and the reasons for it, 
we will find some accommodation in this Chamber so that we can proceed 
to transact the business of the country.
  Madam President, I inquire as to how much of my time remains.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11 minutes and 45 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I thank my colleague for his comments.
  What is occurring is the following: Senator D'Amato offered an 
amendment dealing with the so-called Whitewater matter and included in 
his amendment a very broad description of the proposed subject matters 
of a congressional hearing.
  It is our view that the broad interpretation in that amendment 
directly contradicts the request of the special counsel and also 
directly contradicts the Senate's previous action when, on March 17, 
the Senate voted 98 to zero to have congressional hearings structured 
and sequenced in a way that does not interfere with the special 
counsel's investigation.
  We believe that the appropriate course which will permit the Senate 
to meet its constitutional and legal responsibility and permit the 
special counsel to go forward with a meaningful and effective 
investigation is to conduct hearings on the first phase of the special 
counsel's investigation when he completes that first phase, but in any 
event the hearings would begin no later than July 29 of this year, and 
then to conduct hearings on the remaining phases of his investigation 
when he completes those remaining phases. That is the special counsel's 
request. That is consistent with what the Senate has voted 98 to zero 
on March 17.
  When Senator D'Amato offered his amendment and then I offered an 
alternative amendment, I proposed to Senator D'Amato and our Republican 
colleagues that we take them up separate from any other bill--
freestanding, in the jargon of the Senate--and that we debate them and 
we vote on both of them; that there would be a vote on my amendment and 
there would be a vote on Senator D'Amato's amendment. The Senate would 
be then in a position to express its will on which of the competing 
procedures it wished to adopt. That request was rejected by Senator 
D'Amato and our Republican colleagues.
  He then offered it as an amendment to the airport improvements bill. 
Of course, this subject has nothing to do with the airport improvements 
bill. Many Americans will no doubt wonder why we are debating 
Whitewater in connection with a bill that is to provide funds for 
airport improvement. The rules of the Senate permit that, of course, 
since there is no restriction on the right of amendment.
  Following his offering of the amendment, I offered mine as a second 
degree to his. The Senate then effectively chose mine over his by 
adopting mine by a vote of 56 to 43.
  Subsequently, what has happened is our Republican colleagues are 
taking each of the individual provisions in Senator D'Amato's amendment 
and offering them as separate amendments. That is the amendment we have 
before us.
  In Senator D'Amato's amendment, for example, in section--and this is 
hard to follow because of all the numbers and letters--but it is 
1(b)1(A). That was offered as a separate amendment and the Senate 
rejected it by adopting an alternative. The same is true of subsection 
(F), subsection (G) of that amendment, as well as subsection (N) of 
that amendment.
  And now we have before us what is a verbatim copy of subsection (E) 
of the D'Amato amendment.
  So, in effect, the Senate is debating the same issue which it has 
debated on five previous occasions and votes, the first being the 
broader amendment as to the scope and then following that a series of 
amendments dealing with individual provisions in the broader D'Amato 
amendment.
  So, while the language of this amendment is different, reflecting a 
subsection that is different from those previously pending, the issue 
is the same. The issue is: What should the scope of the congressional 
hearings be at this time?
  And there it is our view that, consistent with both the Senate's 
resolution of March 17 and the request of the special counsel himself, 
the hearings by the Senate now should be limited to those subjects that 
are to be completed in the first phase of the special counsel's 
investigation. And the special counsel has been quite clear and 
consistent in that request, both in writing and orally in meetings with 
Members of the Senate and in other public statements. His concern is 
that hearings that go beyond the first phase now will undermine his 
investigation into the remaining matter.
  So, while the words are different from the previous amendment, the 
issue is identical to those of the previous amendment, except for the 
immediately preceding amendment which dealt with the date on which the 
investigation or the hearings will begin.
  Madam President, I would like, if I might, to take a moment to 
respond not to the remarks of the Senator from Pennsylvania but rather 
to remarks made earlier by the Senator from Mississippi when we dealt 
with his amendment. That has to do with what he called whether there is 
going to be a free and fair hearing.
  The implication of his remarks is that the procedure contained in my 
resolution will not permit a free and fair hearing and we would have to 
adopt procedures of Senator D'Amato's resolution to have such a 
hearing. I suggest the opposite is the case.
  First, the procedure set forth in my resolution is that the hearing 
be held, as are all Senate hearings, in accordance with the rules, 
practices, precedents, and procedures of the Senate.
  Today, this very day, committees of the Senate held hearings under 
those rules. I know of no one who has suggested that those hearings 
were not free and fair or that there is some reason to think that we 
cannot have free and fair hearings under the Senate's rules.
  The one difference is, of course, the limitation on the scope to 
accommodate the request of the special counsel.
  Now, the procedure proposed in Senator D'Amato's alternative 
resolution, by contrast, is one that has no precedent in the more than 
200 years of Senate history. We are presented with, as an alternative, 
a procedure which has never occurred.
  I have asked Senator D'Amato and others in our staff, and we can find 
no precedent for it. It establishes a process that is outside the rules 
of the Senate, that is not consistent with the prior practices and 
procedures of the Senate, and that creates certain powers in certain 
members of the special committee that are without any precedent in the 
Senate.
  So I did not have a chance to respond earlier and I want to make it 
clear, lest there be any misunderstanding, the way to have a proper and 
thorough hearing consistent with the Senate's practices and consistent 
with the request of the special counsel is to do what the Senate has 
already done. That is, to adopt the resolution which I have proposed 
and to reject the alternative which has been proposed by Senator 
D'Amato, as the Senate has done.
  So, Madam President, I urge my colleagues to vote for the substitute 
amendment which tracks the previous substitute amendments and makes 
clear that we are going to have hearings and we are going to do them in 
a manner that is consistent both with the Senate's resolution adopted 
98 to 0 in March and the request of the special counsel, and in 
addition, the practices and procedures of the Senate.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and I reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has 11 minutes and 5 
seconds remaining and the Senator from Pennsylvania, 11 minutes and 45 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I believe the amendment which I have 
just offered is substantially different than anything which has been 
discussed heretofore because of the very substantial factual background 
leading to this amendment. These are materials provided, some from 
hearings and some from media accounts, and I believe they are accurate, 
but they are subject to that limitation. But the information is that on 
September 28, 1993, Treasury general counsel, Jean Hanson, briefed 
White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum on the RTC's plans to make a 
criminal referral to the Justice Department relating to the failure of 
Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association and reportedly told Mr. 
Nussbaum that President Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton would be 
mentioned as potential beneficiary of Madison's failures.
  There was later a meeting on October 14, 1993, among Treasury and 
White House officials in Mr. Nussbaum's office. There was later, on 
February 2, 1994, a meeting initiated by Mr. Roger Altman, and Miss 
Jean Hanson with Mr. Nussbaum to ``describe the procedural reasons for 
the then impending February 28th deadline as far as the statute of 
limitations was concerned.'' And a few days following the February 2 
meeting, Mr. Altman discussed his possible recusal with Mr. Ickes in 
person, Mr. McLarty by telephone.
  The Office of Thrift Supervision Acting Director Jonathan Fiechter 
and acting general counsel Carolyn Lieberman allegedly turned down a 
request of the senior lawyer in the Midwest region who would handle the 
OTS investigation of Silverado Savings & Loan to open a formal 
investigation into Madison. The decision not to pursue the 
investigation was reportedly made by senior political appointees at 
Treasury. However, Mr. Fiechter has stated that he had ``no involvement 
in the matter and that neither he nor OTS staff had consulted with 
Treasury Department officials on enforcement matters.''
  If I might have the attention of the majority leader? On the 
amendment which I have offered, I have included the Office of Thrift 
Supervision, which I think is a very important agency, which is not 
mentioned in the amendment of the majority leader.
  I ask the majority leader what reason he would have for excluding the 
Office of Thrift Supervision from being specified as an Agency whose 
conduct ought to be subject to investigation?
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, we believe the resolution we presented 
is precisely consistent with the request of the special counsel and the 
previous action by the Senate; that it embraces those subjects which 
should be covered now; and that will not interfere with the special 
counsel's investigation.
  Mr. SPECTER. If I may pursue this with the majority leader, in the 
timing which the majority leader has established, procedures are 
designed to allow the special counsel to proceed. I disagree with that. 
I think you can have an investigation, an inquiry by the Senate, 
without interfering with special counsel.
  But assuming the majority leader has his way on it--which appears to 
be the case with 56 votes on his side of the aisle--what harm is there 
in including the Office of Thrift Supervision within the scope of that 
paragraph of his scope of investigation?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, my understanding is that the 
allegation of improper conduct related to the Resolution Trust 
Corporation and not to the Office of Thrift Supervision. I think if we 
said we were going to include that, there would, of course, be no 
limitation on any agency or office which could be included.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I do not think that is true. If you 
specify the Office of Thrift Supervision, it is just that.
  I would like to know what other agencies may be involved. In the 
course of an inquiry it is entirely possible that other agencies may be 
mentioned. We just do not know. So that is why there is a catch-all 
provision in my amendment. But with respect to the Office of Thrift----
  Mr. MITCHELL. If I may just comment on that?
  Mr. SPECTER. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. MITCHELL. To follow that argument to its logical conclusion--
although there is no evidence involving anyone in the Office of Thrift 
Supervision, the Senator says they should be included because something 
might develop about them. We could put the entire Federal Government 
into this. We could say, well, even though we have no evidence of 
improper action by a particular agency--let us say the Department of 
Defense--we ought to include them in it because there might be some 
evidence that would be developed, implicating them.
  I do not agree with that.
  Mr. SPECTER. The majority leader misunderstands me. You may not have 
heard my reference because you may have been conversing at that point 
before I specifically attracted your attention. But I had referred to 
the specific of the Office of Thrift Supervision Acting Director, 
Jonathan Fiechter, and Acting General Counsel Carolyn Lieberman had 
allegedly turned down a request from a senior lawyer in the Midwest 
region to open a formal investigation into Madison.
  So there are specific factual allegations in the public domain 
involving the Office of Thrift Supervision. It seems to me that even 
under the narrowest of interpretations, which I submit the 
distinguished majority leader has in his resolution, the Office of 
Thrift Supervision ought to be included.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, the alleged contacts which are the 
subject of the first phase of the special counsel's investigation, 
involved contacts in Washington and do not involve matters outside of 
Washington.
  If and when those are the subject of the special counsel's 
investigation, and he completes that investigation, then I believe it 
will be appropriate to have a hearing on that matter.
  I believe we should limit the hearings to those matters which are 
embraced in the first phase of the special counsel's investigation, so, 
in his words, as to not to take any action which would undermine or 
interfere with his subsequent investigation.
  Mr. SPECTER. I am delighted, Madam President, to join issue 
specifically with the majority leader on that point, because I think 
that illustrates the fallacy of the limited scope, the fallacy of 
limiting our inquiry, the Senate's inquiry, into what the special 
counsel has to work on.
  There is no magic as to what occurs in a Washington investigation 
contrasted with what occurs in an investigation outside of Washington.
  When the Office of Thrift Supervision in the Midwest region has made 
an inquiry into an Arkansas transaction and all the indications are 
that it is directly related to even the matters which the majority 
leader would have subject to investigation--what has been done with the 
Resolution Trust Corporation and the officials of the Department of 
Treasury--I think it shows the inappropriateness of having such a 
narrowly circumscribed inquiry.
  When the majority leader talks about not including other Federal 
agencies, like the Department of Defense, I think that is unanalogous. 
You have agencies like the Department of Justice, which I would not 
want to name specifically because we do not know what may or may not 
have been involved, but there are contacts from the Department of 
Justice, and if some of the leads move in that direction, there ought 
to be breadth of scope so that you can pursue that.
  When investigations are conducted by grand juries or investigations 
are conducted by congressional committees, there is characteristically 
a sufficiently broad mandate to pursue matters without having it 
specified and coming back to the originating body.
  I know very well that the distinguished majority leader is 
experienced in this field. He has been an assistant U.S. attorney. He 
has been a Federal judge. He has participated in congressional 
investigations.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I just correct the Record at one point--U.S. attorney.
  Mr. SPECTER. What did I say you were?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Assistant.
  Mr. SPECTER. I did not mean to demote Senator Mitchell. I stand 
corrected.
  Mr. MITCHELL. A small point, but I am proud to have served.
  Mr. SPECTER. If you called me U.S. attorney, I would have interrupted 
as well. I was a district attorney. Sometimes precision can be added, 
and I thank the majority leader. But the substantive point remains that 
you have such a tightly drawn charter and here you have a situation 
where there are specific matters in the field in the Office of Thrift 
Supervision, and a Senate hearing may come upon a matter which is 
directly related to the Office of Thrift Supervision.
  Who knows, some Senator who might be sitting on the right side of the 
aisle may ask a question and the chairman may say, ``I'm sorry; that is 
out of order. We have an amendment from Senator Mitchell here which 
precludes it.''
  We talk about a lot of generalized matters which are a little hard to 
follow in the public arena. But I raise this issue because there is 
specific information involving the Office of Thrift Supervision which 
touches these matters directly and that seems to me ought to be at 
least within the scope of what would be agreed to by the majority 
leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, has the Senator concluded his remarks?
  Mr. SPECTER. I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will tell the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, he has 26 seconds remaining. The majority leader has 11 
minutes and 1 second remaining.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Would the Senator like a few more minutes of my time?
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the majority leader for that offer. It depends 
on what happens.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, let me make a couple of points.
  First, so there can be no misunderstanding in the Senate about the 
fact that we are voting on the same thing we have previously voted on, 
I want to read the paragraph of this amendment and then read the 
paragraph of the D'Amato amendment which the Senate has previously 
debated and voted on, and by adopting the alternative rejected. Just so 
all Senators understand that.
  Here is what this amendment says beginning at line 4, after 
appropriate introductory language, in referring to the committee:

       * * * conduct an investigation into, study of, and hearings 
     on, all matters which have any tendency to reveal the full 
     facts about the independence of the Resolution Trust 
     Corporation, Federal banking agencies and other Federal 
     regulatory agencies, including any improper contacts among 
     officials of the White House, the Department of the Treasury, 
     the Resolution Trust Corporation, the Office of Thrift 
     Supervision, and any other Federal agency.

  The language of the D'Amato amendment is:

       * * * conduct an investigation into and study of all 
     matters which have any tendency to reveal the full facts 
     about the independence of the Resolution Trust Corporation, 
     Federal banking agencies and other Federal regulatory 
     agencies, including any improper contacts among officials of 
     the White House, the Department of the Treasury, the 
     Resolution Trust Corporation, the Office of Thrift 
     Supervision, and any other Federal agency.

  A listener will note they are identical. So we are debating and 
voting on an amendment which we have already debated and voted on as 
part of a larger amendment.
  Second, the Senator has focused on and has raised a good point on the 
Resolution Trust Corporation, but his amendment also includes the 
words, ``other Federal regulatory agencies, banking agencies, and any 
other Federal agency.'' That is a license for an unlimited fishing 
expedition.
  ``Other Federal regulatory agencies, Federal banking agencies and any 
other Federal agency.'' It seems to me those words make clear that the 
purpose here is to permit inquiries into any subject involving any 
Federal agency.
  And so while the Senator argues--and I respect him and his point of 
view--that my resolution is too restrictive, I do not share that view. 
I respectfully disagree. I would argue that this amendment is way too 
broad. That is the problem. That is the disagreement we have.
  Our colleagues want right now to have hearings that will get into 
every conceivable aspect of this matter and be able to involve any 
Federal agency.
  We want to heed the request of the special counsel to limit the 
hearings to those subjects which are involved in the first phase of his 
investigation so as not to undermine the remainder of his 
investigation. That is the point that is at issue, and that has been at 
issue from the beginning of this discussion.
  The Senator suggests that, in his words, there is a fallacy in the 
argument that we ought to limit it to those matters being covered in 
the first phase of the special counsel's investigation. I disagree, 
again, respectfully, but I note that if there is a fallacy, it is a 
fallacy adopted by the Senate by a vote of 98 to 0 in March. I do not 
know if the Senator was present then, but if he was, he voted for it. 
And it says, in subparagraph D:

       The hearing 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.

  So the Senate, by a wide vote, expressed itself clearly on the Record 
as not wanting to conduct hearings in a manner that would interfere 
with the special counsel's investigation.
  Mr. SPECTER. Will the distinguished majority leader yield for a 
question?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Certainly.
  Mr. SPECTER. I was present, and I disagree with the interpretation to 
this effect: That as you have structured your amendment, you have done 
so in a way calculated not to interfere with the special counsel's 
inquiry. I do not think it has to be, but you have done that.
  My point is, why not add the Office of Thrift Supervision? When you 
talk about the Washington matters, I believe that that relates to 
matters which occurred during the term of President Clinton's occupancy 
in the White House, as opposed to something which is geographical in 
nature.
  When I refer to the Office of Thrift Supervision and what happened in 
the Midwest branch, it is not a matter of geography, it is a matter of 
timing; that those matters occurred, as I understand it, while 
President Clinton has been in office.
  So that would be comprehended within the Washington phase of the 
inquiry. Although the Senator may disagree with the Federal banking 
agencies, Federal regulatory agencies, and other Federal agencies, 
because that reaches every conceivable aspect of the matter, it seems 
to me that is exactly what we are trying to do, is reach every 
conceivable aspect of the matter so long as we are investigating the 
matter.
  But why not at least--and these are my questions--why not at least 
include the Office of Thrift Supervision within the confines of the 
Senator's parameters? The second question is, is it not appropriate to 
include matters which occurred, although geographically in the Midwest, 
in time when President Clinton was in office, which is the substantive 
designation of the Washington scope?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, if I might respond, it was the special 
counsel himself who stated that his investigation had two phases, one 
being a Washington phase and one being a so-called Arkansas phase, and 
that the Washington phase embraced those matters which he identified 
and on which our resolution is based.
  Mr. SPECTER. Was not that based upon matters, the Washington phase, 
when Mr. Clinton was in the White House, when William J. Clinton was 
President? The Office of Thrift Supervision matters occurred while he 
was President as opposed to being linked to his activities while he was 
Governor in Arkansas.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Right. But my point is that we are honoring the request 
of the special counsel, and we have accepted his description of the 
subject matter that is the first phase of his investigation and his 
request not to go beyond that.
  Mr. SPECTER. But as I understand it, he has not asked us to stay out 
of what happened with the Office of Thrift Supervision in the Midwest 
region.
  Mr. MITCHELL. That is true. He has not asked us to stay out of 
offshore drilling in California. He has not asked us to stay out of 
whatever. We had this debate earlier in connection with another 
amendment. We are stating it in the affirmative in accordance with what 
the special counsel indicated is in the first phase of his 
investigation.
  Now, we had an earlier amendment dealing with Mrs. Clinton's 
commodity trading, and the same argument was made: Well, Mr. Fiske did 
not object to that.
  Of course, he did not. It has nothing to do with it. And I think the 
comment was made, well, Mr. Fiske did not object--he did not say he 
objected to congressional investigation into Mrs. Clinton's attempt to 
join the Marines. Does that mean we do it here?
  I think we approach it from a different context. We are not saying 
that merely because Mr. Fiske did not object to something it ought to 
be included in the hearing. There is a universe, almost infinity of 
things that Mr. Fiske did not object to, but what we are saying is that 
we are taking those things that he has affirmatively stated constitute 
the subject matter of the first phase of his investigation.
  Mr. SPECTER. But has not----
  Mr. MITCHELL. Let me finish the sentence. And we are including those 
in the first phase of the congressional hearings. And then when the 
second phase of his investigation is completed, it would then be, in my 
judgment will be appropriate and mandatory that the Senate conduct 
hearings on the remaining matters that are the subject of the remainder 
of his investigation.
  Mr. SPECTER. But has not Mr. Fiske said that the first phase of his 
investigation is the Washington phase, meaning what happened while the 
President was in office? And is not the incident of the Office of 
Thrift Supervision that I referred to part of the first phase so that 
it ought to be included even within the limited scope of what the 
majority leader has proposed?
  Mr. MITCHELL. No, I do not agree with that.
  Mr. SPECTER. Why not?
  Mr. MITCHELL. I do not think it should be included because it is not 
included in the first phase of his investigation. So we are limiting 
ourselves to those matters which are in the first phase of his 
investigation. And if that is a subject of the second or later phase of 
his investigation, then, of course, we will have hearings on those 
matters after he has completed that phase of his inquiry.
  Mr. SPECTER. If I am able to satisfy the majority leader----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will announce that the majority 
leader has used his time, and the Senator from Pennsylvania has 26 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. I am ahead of the game.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I will give the Senator a final word.
  Mr. SPECTER. If I may finish the question to the distinguished 
majority leader. If I am able to show the Senator factually that the 
matters related to the Office of Thrift Supervision are a part of the 
first phase of Mr. Fiske's investigation, would he be willing to amend 
the charter to include the Office of Thrift Supervision?
  Mr. MITCHELL. I will listen to anything the Senator has to say and 
review it carefully and seriously, as I do all matters that he 
suggests. I do not make a commitment to what course of action I might 
take.
  Mr. SPECTER. I take that as a qualified yes.
  Mr. MITCHELL. That is not a qualified yes. It is an agreement to hear 
what the Senator says.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that the letter I wrote to the 
President dated March 3, 1994, be made a part of the record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Appropriations,

                                    Washington, DC, March 3, 1994.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I noted media reports of meetings 
     between Treasury Department and White House personnel 
     concerning the investigation of the Madison Guaranty Savings 
     & Loan.
       Given the facts surrounding that investigation, there is a 
     strong inference that those meetings have compromised the 
     investigation and have obstructed the investigation of a 
     financial institution in violation of federal law.
       Unless your personal review clears the parties of wrongful 
     conduct, then I call upon you to terminate their employment 
     forthwith without awaiting any criminal investigation by the 
     Special Prosecutor.
       If you do not terminate their employment, I ask you to 
     advise me of the specifics of precisely what occurred in all 
     meetings and conversations between the Treasury Department 
     and White House personnel concerning the Madison 
     investigation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Arlen Specter.

  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Under the previous order, it is my understanding that 
Senator Bond was going to be present with his amendment or he was going 
to have it available for Senator Specter or another designee to offer. 
And I inquire through the Chair of the Senator from Pennsylvania if he 
is prepared now to offer Senator Bond's amendment or if he would like a 
brief quorum call while he reviews that?
  Mr. SPECTER. If I may respond, I do not have the information. I think 
Senator Bond may be on his way over. So I think the appropriate course 
would be to have a quorum call.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Madam 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. 1790

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

  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1790.

  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs shall 
     conduct an investigation into, study of, and hearings on, all 
     matters which have any tendency to reveal the full facts 
     about the Department of Justice's handling of the Resolution 
     Trust Corporation's criminal referrals relating to Madison 
     Guaranty Savings and Loan Association. The term ``Madison 
     Guaranty Savings and Loan Association'' includes any 
     subsidiary company, affiliated company, or business owned or 
     controlled, in whole or in part, by Madison Guaranty Savings 
     and Loan Association, its officers, directors, or principal 
     shareholders.

  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam 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. 1791 to Amendment No. 1790

  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Mr. Mitchell] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1791 to amendment numbered 1790.

  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In lieu of the matter proposed, insert the following:
       (1) Additional Hearings: In the fulfillment of the Senate's 
     constitutional oversight role, additional hearings on the 
     matters identified in the resolution passed by the Senate by 
     a vote of 98-0 on March 17, 1994 should be authorized as 
     appropriate under, and in accordance with, the provisions of 
     that resolution.
       (2) Any additional hearings should be structured and 
     sequenced in such a manner that in the judgment of the two 
     Leaders they would not interfere with the ongoing 
     investigation of Special Counsel Robert B. Fiske, Jr.

  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, as the Senator from Missouri may be 
aware, under a prior agreement, we will debate this amendment until 
6:30. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 
6:30 be for debate on the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Missouri and the amendment offered by myself with the time equally 
divided between the Senator from Missouri and myself.
  Mr. BOND. That is agreeable. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I inquire whether the yeas and nays 
have been ordered on my amendment to the preceding Specter amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I now ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, if it is in order, I ask for the yeas 
and nays on my amendment just offered to the Bond amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I thank my colleague. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, since it is likely, given what we have 
seen in the past, that we will be blocked out from having a vote on the 
amendment which I just offered--this is the practice that we have gone 
through--I thought it would be helpful for my colleagues and those who 
are interested in this to know specifically what we are attempting to 
examine, and the vote which will occur along straight party lines, if 
the past is prologue to the history, and if prologue will prevent our 
consideration.
  The amendment I sent to the desk, which has a second degree, would 
simply authorize the committee to investigate the Justice Department's 
handling of the RTC's two sets of criminal referrals involving Madison 
Guaranty. Many savings and loans, such as Madison Guaranty, failed 
because of criminal misconduct by insiders. Part of the RTC's duties 
include making referrals to criminal authorities to apprise them of 
possible wrongdoing.
  Congress also expects RTC criminal referrals sent to the Justice 
Department to be thoroughly and expeditiously reviewed. The American 
taxpayers, who so far have paid approximately $81 billion to resolve 
failed savings and loans, should be confident that the Justice 
Department is pursuing criminal referrals received from the RTC. The 
taxpayers also have a right to know specifically what happened to the 
RTC criminal referrals involving Madison that were sent to the 
Department of Justice in 1992 and 1993.
  Did the Department of Justice have adequate procedures in place to 
deal with criminal referrals it received from the RTC, and were those 
procedures followed in the case of Madison Guaranty?
  (Mr. CONRAD assumed the chair.)
  Mr. BOND. On September 2, 1992, the RTC made a criminal referral to 
Justice alleging a $1.5 million check kiting scheme among Madison, Jim 
McDougal, and entities under Jim McDougal's control. The referral was 
sent to the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. About 6 
months later, in March 1993, the RTC senior investigator of Madison was 
informed that the U.S. attorney in Arkansas had sent this initial 
referral to Washington because the referral was a politically hot one.
  Remarkably, when the RTC investigator attempted to determine the 
status of the Madison criminal referral, she was told by the U.S. 
attorney's office that there was no record of the referral in the 
Arkansas U.S. attorney's office.
  Something happened. Do we in this body not have a right to ask what 
happened? Why not?
  It took until May 1993 to determine that the Arkansas U.S. Attorney 
had sent the referral to Washington, DC claiming that he felt there was 
a conflict of interest. The main Justice Department in Washington 
ultimately returned the referral to Arkansas, deciding there was no 
basis for recusal of the U.S. attorney and a lack of conflict of 
interest.
  Documents reveal there were no specific procedures in place at the 
Justice Department to monitor the disposition of RTC's criminal 
referral, nor does Congress know whether the Justice Department has 
specific procedures in place for criminal referrals it determines are 
politically hot.
  Mr. President, I asked questions of the RTC about similar referrals, 
and what they did with politically hot cases, when the RTC was before 
the Banking Committee. I got a misinformation answer the first time, 
and as part of the result of that question and that answer, we got 10 
subpoenas to the White House. But we have not had an opportunity to ask 
the Department of Justice similar questions.
  This seems to me to be just another classic example of the stonewall, 
this time on behalf of Congress. Did the Justice Department adequately 
review the RTC criminal referrals regarding Madison?
  On October 8, 1993, the RTC sent nine additional referrals to the 
U.S. attorney and the FBI. Two weeks later, the new Clinton-appointed 
U.S. attorney, Paula Casey, wrote to the RTC to indicate that the 
referrals had been declined.
  In that declination letter Paula Casey also indicated that the matter 
was concluded before she began working in this office. It is unclear 
who at Justice reviewed the RTC criminal referrals relating to Madison, 
and at what point the decision was made not to pursue the referrals.
  Mr. President, these matters involve critical questions about the 
Justice Department's procedures for handling criminal referrals from 
the RTC. It also remains unclear what the timing was of the Justice 
Department's declination of the Madison criminal-related referrals.
  I believe that for a thorough investigation of this matter, we must 
make a determination and report to the American taxpayers about how the 
criminal referrals are handled by the Justice Department and whether 
they were handled properly in the Madison case. The American taxpayers 
should not have to pay one more dollar than necessary to resolve 
Madison Guaranty. This clearly relates to the Washington phase of the 
investigation. We are apparently, based on the discussions previously, 
going to be precluded from asking the Department of Justice about this 
case on the theory that the special counsel did not look into it; 
therefore, we cannot look into it. Well, the only reason we got the 
special counsel into it in the first place was that we had officials 
before the Banking Committee who represented the RTC and Treasury, and 
we were able to ask the questions. Sometimes asking questions and 
exposing these materials to the light of day can bring some amazing 
consequences.
  Are we to be shut out from asking how the Department of Justice 
handled this, and how all of the appointees of the Clinton 
administration handled them? Well, if the second-degree amendment by 
the majority leader is adopted, we will not even get a chance to vote 
on this issue.
  Mr. President, I suggest that the American people ought to sense that 
somebody has a real desire to keep Congress and the American people 
from knowing what went on. We have seen in the past in this body 
vigorously pursued investigations of the administration, the executive 
branch, when it was in Republican hands. Somehow that zeal for 
investigation has waned with the change of party in the White House.
  I urge my colleagues to disapprove the second-degree amendment, to 
show some courage, and to say that, yes, we would like to know whether 
the Justice Department acted properly in handling these referrals, and 
whether they had any contacts, communications, or other transactions 
with the White House during the time that these criminal referrals were 
under consideration, and afterward.
  Mr. President, these are very serious matters. The American people 
have a right to know, and I think we can do better than stonewall them 
and say: You cannot ask the Department of Justice anything, because the 
special counsel, Mr. Fiske, was not involved in investigations of the 
Justice Department.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. 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. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be 
equally charged to both sides under the quorum call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. I ask how much time is remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's side of the aisle controls 5 
minutes 15 seconds, and the majority side has 16 minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator suggest the absence of a 
quorum?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, the issue before us is once again 
identical to the issue which we have previously debated and voted on in 
the Senate over the past few days. I believe this will now be the sixth 
or seventh vote that will deal with the same issue.
  As I stated earlier, Senator D'Amato offered an amendment which 
attempted to establish a broad scope for the hearings far beyond that 
of the subjects covered in the first phase of the special counsel's 
investigation.
  I believe his amendment directly contradicts the action taken by the 
Senate by a vote of 98 to 0 in March, and directly contradicts the 
request of the special counsel that the hearings to be conducted at 
this time be limited to those subjects which are covered in the first 
phase of the special counsel's investigation.
  I offered to our Republican colleagues to have a vote on Senator 
D'Amato's amendment and one on mine. They refused that. Therefore, 
Senator D'Amato offered his amendment to the airport improvements bill, 
and I then offered mine as a second-degree amendment to his.
  The Senate adopted my amendment by a vote of 56 to 43, thereby 
rejecting Senator D'Amato's amendment.
  Now what has happened is our colleagues have come in and are offering 
as separate amendments individual provisions out of Senator D'Amato's 
amendment, and this is, I think, the fifth or sixth time they have done 
that.
  The amendment offered by Senator Bond appears at page 4, lines 8 
through 11, and page 6, lines 4 through 9, of the D'Amato amendment. 
That is to say, it is virtually word for word lifted out of an 
amendment that the Senate has already rejected in a manner identical to 
that pursued in the previous amendment by Senator Specter, and by the 
various other amendments offered earlier.
  So there really is not much to say. We are now having the same debate 
for the seventh time, and we will have the same vote for the seventh 
time. And I guess we will have it as long as our Republican colleagues 
want to continue to offer amendments in the same pattern and debate the 
same issue and vote on the same issue.
  Let me, if I might, in just a few minutes explain again what I 
believe the proper course of action should be.
  A special counsel was appointed to investigate the so-called 
Whitewater matter. The special counsel is himself a Republican, a life-
long Republican, a man of experience and integrity, whose appointment 
was praised by Republican Senators.
  He has requested in writing and in meetings with Senators and other 
public statements that the Senate not conduct hearings which could 
interfere with or undermine his investigation, and he has specifically 
requested that since his investigation is being conducted in two 
phases, the Senate's hearings be conducted in phases, and that the 
first phase of the Senate hearings be limited to those subjects covered 
in the first phase of his investigation.
  The amendment offered by Senator D'Amato, already rejected by the 
Senate, specifically contradicts the special counsel's request by 
attempting to have the hearings now go far beyond the subjects covered 
in the first phase of the special counsel's investigation, and also 
contradicts the vote in the Senate in March where, by a vote of 98 to 
0, the Senate voted:

       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.

  In the amendment preceding this one, a new twist was given to the 
matter. It was suggested that since the special counsel had not 
specifically objected to a certain subject, it ought to be included in 
this investigation and, therefore, the preceding amendment permitted an 
inquiry into Federal banking authorities, Federal regulatory 
authorities and, in the words of that amendment, any Federal agency.
  I think that demonstrates the extreme nature of the unlimited fishing 
expedition that is being proposed here. There is an almost infinite and 
unlimited number of subjects to which the special counsel has not 
specifically objected. If we adopt that line of theory, we could have a 
hearing that could investigate the subject of gravity, offshore 
drilling for oil off California, Mrs. Clinton's childhood schooling--
almost anything.
  The real issue is, are we going to conduct a serious and responsible 
investigation that will, in fact, be consistent with both the actions 
taken by the Senate in March by a vote of 98 to 0, and the specific 
written and oral requests of the special counsel that our hearings not 
delve into matters beyond the scope of the first phase of his 
investigation.
  That is really the issue. It has been the issue all along. The Senate 
has already voted on it several times.
  I urge my colleagues to again reject the approach contained in this 
amendment, and I hope at some point we will be permitted to proceed and 
get on with the Senate's business. We are now in the 4th full day of 
this matter, stretching over a period of 6 calendar days, and I think 
that we have an important bill, the airport improvement bill, which 
provides funding for airports all across the country. This has nothing 
to do with that.
  I proposed that we take this matter up freestanding and unrelated, 
and that we have a vote on the Republican amendment and a vote on mine, 
and our colleagues rejected that offer and insisted instead that it be 
offered as an amendment to an unrelated bill, thereby delaying the 
airport improvement bill, and I think unwisely and needlessly delaying 
the Senate.
  We have now been 4 full legislative days debating the same issue, 
voting on the same issue, over and over and over again, and the Senate 
has expressed itself clearly and consistently.
  I hope that the Senate will do so again in the case of these two 
amendments.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require.
  I would like to ask if the distinguished majority leader would be 
willing to answer several questions I have, to help me understand his 
position.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I apologize. I was discussing another matter with my 
staff.
  Does the Senator seek my attention?
  Certainly.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the majority leader.
  Mr. President, I ask the majority leader, since the special counsel 
is not investigating contacts by the Department of Justice, under the 
second-degree amendment offered by the distinguished majority leader, 
would I be allowed to ask the Justice Department officials about how 
they handled the referral under his amendments?
  Mr. MITCHELL. The Senator would be permitted to ask questions that 
are related directly to the subjects covered in the first phase of the 
special counsel's investigation.
  I will, in just a moment, if I can, get a copy of the amendment in my 
hand and read those to you.
  Page 2 of the amendment includes the following matters which are 
concurrent with the subjects of the first phase of the special 
counsel's investigation. They involve:
  First, communications between officials of the White House and the 
Department of the Treasury or the Resolution Trust Corporation relating 
to the Whitewater Development Corp. and the Madison Guaranty Savings & 
Loan Association; second, the Park Service police investigation into 
the death of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster; and, third, 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.
  Any questions that are reasonably related to those subject matters 
would obviously be permitted.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would ask the majority leader, since the 
White House special counsel's investigation is not relating to the 
Department of Justice contacts, and since, as I laid out on the floor 
yesterday four specific requests I made of the RTC and they said that 
any questions about this matter must come from the Department of 
Justice, why will we not be able to ask those questions under the 
amendment proposed by the majority leader, why will we not be able to 
ask about the activities of Mr. Web Hubbell, Mrs. Paula Casey, and why 
we should not be able to do so under our general oversight authority?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I will be pleased to answer that 
question again. I have done so several times over the past few days.
  The special counsel has made clear that it is his desire that the 
hearings conducted at this time be limited to the subjects of the first 
phase of his investigation.
  Now, it is quite clear, and we have a respectful disagreement, that 
my colleague and our Republican colleagues want to go beyond that. In 
fact, the amendments offered would permit inquiries into virtually any 
subject involving any Federal agency and involving a wide range of 
subjects that we believe do not have anything to do with this matter; 
that the purpose is to engage in a fishing expedition for political 
reasons.
  Now, that is what we have discussed. That is what we have debated. 
That is what we voted on. We can debate it and ask and answer questions 
from now, in the colloquial phrase used in Maine, until the cows come 
home, but it is not going to change the issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The majority leader has time remaining.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I will be glad to yield some of my time to the Senator 
from Missouri if he wants to take a few more minutes.
  Mr. BOND. I appreciate that generous offer. I had just a few more 
questions to ask the majority leader and I would be honored to do so on 
his time.
  The majority leader referred to a broad fishing expedition. The 
amendment I offered relates to the full facts about the Department of 
Justice's handling of the Resolution Trust Corporation criminal 
referrals relating to the Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association. 
To me, this is not a broad fishing expedition.
  But, is it not the case, I would ask the majority leader, that 
Congress traditionally has the right to ask questions about any area of 
Federal Government activity? I ask that as the first question.
  The second question is: When the special counsel has not begun any 
investigation into the Department of Justice contacts, why would Mr. 
Fiske want to preclude us from asking questions? The questions that we 
asked in the Banking Committee of the RTC started this investigation. 
We might be able to bring more light on the subject through questions.
  I would ask if there is any specific indication the majority leader 
has had from the special counsel that we should not pursue questions 
that are not the subject of his investigation?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I have had no discussion or contact 
whatever with the special counsel, so my impression of his position is 
drawn from his public statements and documents.
  We have made a complete circle and we are right now back at the 
beginning. This is almost word for word the discussion I had previously 
with Senator Specter. I respect the fact Senator Bond was not here 
then, but we have been through the same discussion.
  The approach taken by the Senator in his question is that if the 
special counsel has not objected specifically to a subject, we ought to 
get into it. This came up earlier today when we had an amendment asking 
for an investigation into some transactions that Mrs. Clinton engaged 
in 10 to 15 years ago. He has not objected to that because it has 
nothing to do with this.
  The comment was made then, not by me but by someone else, well, the 
special counsel has not specifically objected to the fact that Mrs. 
Clinton tried to join the Marines. And I suppose, under the Senator's 
reasoning, we should now have an investigation of her efforts to join 
the Marines.

  We approach it from the opposite point of view; that is, from the 
affirmative point of view. And it is that these hearings should be 
conducted in a manner that they are structured and sequenced so as not 
to interfere with his investigation and be limited to the subjects of 
his investigation. That is what we have done.
  Now, we are really right back at the beginning where the Senator 
wants to get into other matters. We have amendments here for any 
Federal agency, all banking authorities, all regulatory authorities.
  We just disagree. I understand the Senator's desire that it ought to 
go broader.
  Let me say finally, because our time is up and we are going to vote 
in just a minute, that the Senator just made a point that the Banking 
Committee previously conducted the hearings into this matter. I know 
the Senator from Missouri is a member of that committee. And it affirms 
my point in another difference between us on where these hearings 
should be conducted.
  We think the Banking Committee is the appropriate committee. 
According to the Senator's own assertion, it has previously held 
hearings on this matter. Unfortunately, our colleagues do not want it 
held in the Banking Committee and under the established rules, 
practices, and procedures of the Senate, but want to create an entirely 
new committee, one without precedent in the Senate, and want to invest 
powers in the minority members of the committee that have never been 
granted to minority members in the more than 200-year history of the 
Senate.
  I appreciate his comments with respect to the Banking Committee, 
because I interpret them--although I understand he may have not 
intended them that way--as supportive of the position we have taken on 
another major difference between us; that is to say, that these 
hearings ought to be conducted in accordance with the rules, the 
practices, and the procedures of the Senate. That is what we have 
proposed.
  We have a committee which has jurisdiction over these matters which, 
according to the Senator from Missouri, is the committee which has held 
previous hearings on the matter and, according to him, has developed 
valuable information in the conduct of that hearing.
  Now along come our colleagues who say, ``We do not want the hearings 
to be held there. We don't want it to be held in accordance with the 
regular rules, practices, and procedures of the Senate. We want to 
create this whole new mechanism which is without precedent, and we want 
to create new rules and create new powers which have never existed in 
the more than 200 years of the Senate's history.''
  That is another major difference between us.
  I thank the Senator for his comment.
  Mr. President, has my time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has about a minute remaining.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Well, I will conclude, Mr. President, by repeating for 
the umpteenth time--I threatened earlier that since all of these 
amendments say essentially the same thing, and since the debate is the 
same thing, and since I have said it so often, that to test my memory, 
I am going to recite this statement backward at one of these points, 
because we really have here the same issue that has been discussed, 
that has been debated, and that has been voted on by the Senate.
  It deals with the proper scope of the investigation. I understand the 
arguments made by my colleagues. I respectfully disagree. I think that 
the resolution which the Senate has already voted on is the proper way 
to proceed, consistent with the Senate's rules, consistent with the 
Senate's practices, consistent with what the Senate has already done on 
this subject, and consistent with the Senate's vote in March, and 
consistent with the special counsel's request.
  By contrast, our colleagues propose a procedure that is inconsistent 
with all of the above: inconsistent with the Senate's rules, 
inconsistent with the Senate's practices and procedures, inconsistent 
with the Senate's previous vote, and inconsistent with the special 
counsel's request.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The question is on amendment No. 1789 offered by the majority leader. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced, yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 143 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     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

       
     Harkin
       
  So the amendment (No. 1789) was agreed to.


                 vote on amendment no 1788, as amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Next we will vote on the underlying Specter 
amendment, amendment No. 1788, as amended.
  So the amendment (No. 1788), as amended, was agreed to.


            vote on amendment no. 1791 to amendment no. 1790

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 1791 
is now in order. 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 Iowa [Mr. Harkin] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Robb). 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. 144 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     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

       
     Harkin
       
  So the amendment (No. 1791) was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, am I correct that under the previous 
order the Senate will now vote on the underlying amendment, as amended?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the underlying 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1790) was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, the Senate has now debated and voted on 
the same issue about seven times. I do not know how many more times the 
Senate will be asked to do so. My hope is that, given the fact that the 
Senate has already voted on the same issue seven times and voted 
clearly and consistently in the same manner, the Senate can proceed to 
complete action on this amendment, which would establish the authority 
for the hearings our colleagues say they want and then would permit us 
to complete action on the very important bill dealing with airport 
improvements, which will provide funding for airport improvements 
around the country.
  As I have previously indicated, the Senate will remain in session 
this week until we complete action on the airport improvement bill and 
on the legislative appropriations bill, even if that requires a very 
late night tonight and a very late night tomorrow night and a very long 
day on Friday.
  We are soon reaching the point where the press of business on the 
Senate will be immense. We are required by law to act on 13 
appropriations measures prior to the end of the fiscal year. Those are 
the essential work of the legislative branch of Government, and we are 
going to begin the first one tomorrow, if we can finish this bill this 
evening.
  I recognize that there is a difference of opinion on this, but I 
believe we have now reached the point where a continuation of this 
practice of offering amendments, which are obviously going to be 
defeated, which are clearly repetitious of the subject previously 
debated and decided, is unjustified and wasteful of the Senate's time 
and the money it costs to operate the Senate.
  Obviously, under the rules of the Senate, any Senator can offer any 
amendment any time he or she wants, and we have now become accustomed 
to the tactic of effectively filibustering by offering an unlimited 
number of amendments. But I think there is not even a pretense here, 
since the amendments deal with essentially the same subject that has 
been discussed, debated, and voted on so many times.
  I hope very much that we can complete action. I regret the 
inconvenience to Senators that we will have to remain in session as 
late as we are now and will have to later this evening. But I simply 
state that, if we are going to keep having these amendments, we are 
going to keep voting.
  It is not my intention that there be unlimited delay without votes. 
Several Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, have commitments in 
the evening and have asked for a period of time within which no votes 
will occur, and I have assured them and advised the minority staff, so 
they have advised Republican Senators as well, that there will be no 
votes this evening prior to 8:30. That is to say, Senators may be 
assured that for the next 1 hour 15 minutes there will not be any 
votes. The next vote may not occur at 8:30; it may be later than that. 
I hope that we can, as we have this afternoon, have amendments called 
up, debated, and have two or three votes stacked at a time certain, and 
that will make it less inconvenient for Senators who are engaged in 
other matters this evening.
  I have asked that our colleagues on the other side, who indicate they 
have amendments to offer, be prepared to do so during this period. In 
the meantime, the Senator from Washington has an important matter that 
he wishes to address the Senate on.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Gorton be recognized to address 
the Senate as in morning business for 10 minutes, following which I 
hope we will be prepared to proceed with one or more amendments, and at 
that time I hope to set the schedule for the next vote or votes in the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington is recognized for up to 10 minutes as in 
morning business.

                          ____________________