[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. GORTON. Mr. President, 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader, 
Senator Mitchell.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Missouri 
and I have discussed how best to proceed now, and I merely wanted to 
confirm our understanding that he is going to speak for some minutes 
and then offer an amendment. Am I correct in my understanding?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, that is correct.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, at that point I will put in a quorum 
call and be prepared with a second-degree amendment, and I will 
appreciate the Senator notifying me when he gets to the point where he 
intends to do so.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I will be happy to consent to that for the 
convenience of the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Missouri 
[Mr. Bond].
  Mr. BOND. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, we discussed at length some very important matters in 
the debate on the last amendment, and I thought it might be helpful to 
go over the status of these discussions, where they are, and how we got 
to this point.
  The majority leader made a very eloquent argument against the D'Amato 
amendment. But the amendment that was essentially vitiated by his 
second-degree amendment was not a broad fishing amendment. It was not 
designed to go far afield. In fact, as I stated at the time, it said 
that the committee should conduct an investigation into, study of, and 
hearings on, matters having a tendency to reveal the full facts about 
the Department of Justice handling of the Resolution Trust Corporation 
criminal referrals relating to Madison Guaranty Savings & 
Loan Association.

  My point was that this was clearly relevant to the issues of what was 
done in Washington by this administration with respect to the 
activities in Arkansas generally lumped under the category of 
Whitewater. This was a very specifically targeted amendment dealing 
with what had gone on with the Department of Justice. The majority 
leader's second-degree amendments and proposals have specifically 
excluded inquiry into the activities of the Department of Justice.
  As I understood the majority leader to say, number one, this was 
somehow outside the scope of the resolution adopted by this body 98 to 
0 on March 17, 1994.
  So I went back to get a copy from the Congressional Record of that 
resolution. It says in part (B):

       The majority leader and the Republican leader should meet 
     and determine the appropriate timetable, procedures, and 
     forum for appropriate congressional oversight, including 
     hearings on all matters related to Madison Guaranty Savings & 
     Loan Association, Whitewater Development Corp., and Capital 
     Management Services, Inc.

  And I end my quotation of that resolution.
  My amendment was not a broad fishing expedition. It was not an 
attempt to go beyond the Washington activities related to Whitewater 
and Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association. It specifically asked 
that we be allowed to question representatives of the Department of 
Justice about whether they knew about Whitewater, what they did about 
Whitewater, who did they discuss the Whitewater investigations with, 
the Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association, and other activities.
  The first set of criminal referrals to the Department of Justice 
arrived sometime in September 1992.
  Now the President's very close friend and confidant, Webster Hubbell, 
arrived at the Department of Justice with the new administration early 
in 1993. Are we to believe that he did not know anything about a 
criminal referral potentially involving the President in his prior 
capacity? If he knew, did he, in fact, take any steps with respect to 
that referral? Did he, in fact, advise the President of it?
  I understand that the President said the first he learned about the 
possibility of criminal referrals was sometime in the fall of 1993. 
This may be true but, Mr. President, I think there are some very 
legitimate questions we ought to ask. It was pursuing questions like 
this that we uncovered the contacts between the RTC, the Treasury, and 
the White House which led to the subpoenas and led to significant 
inquiries.
  These are legitimate questions that we need to know the answers to in 
order to determine, in our role of congressional oversight, whether 
there was any wrongdoing with respect to the handling by this 
administration of the matters relating to Whitewater.
  As a result of the second-degree amendment which was adopted on a 
party line vote, we will be precluded from asking the questions and the 
public will be precluded from hearing the questions and the answers.
  Now, we further understand from the statements of the majority leader 
that he has not spoken to Mr. Fiske about these amendments being 
offered today and the previous days on this measure, the D'Amato 
amendment. Therefore, I can assume it is from information, press 
statements, and letters. We have not been advised of any directive from 
Mr. Fiske saying that he has any objection to our questioning the 
Department of Justice about their handling of these matters.
  My amendment to expand the majority leader's narrow scope at least to 
include the Department of Justice's handling of the RTC criminal 
referrals on Madison was defeated based on what I guess we can call 
intuition as to what Mr. Fiske wants or does not want.
  This is beginning to be a transparent charade.
  No. 1, we are to limit hearings to things Mr. Fiske is finished with 
without even knowing what he is doing. No. 2, we are then to limit the 
hearings to those things he addresses in phase II. And, three, somehow 
we are never allowed hearings on things that Mr. Fiske does not 
address.
  Now, we talk about unprecedented activities. To say that Congress, in 
its oversight role looking at the activities of the administration of 
the Federal Government, is somehow limited to doing a review and 
grading of the special counsel's work is, I think, a novel precedent.
  Our oversight is supposed to be limited to what the special counsel 
is investigating for criminal wrongdoing? I think not. I think there 
are many other questions that we could and should and must address.
  My amendment was very specifically targeted to those questions from 
the Department of Justice that could be relevant.
  Yesterday, I discussed at some length my questions to the RTC. The 
questions which brought about the subpoenas revealed the contacts 
between the RTC and the Treasury and the White House. I subsequently 
submitted written questions to the RTC.
  I asked, first, is it normal RTC practice to send additional 
investigators for further investigations on a matter before hearing the 
status of the first referral?
  The answer to that by the RTC: ``There is no standardized procedure 
in this regard. Any questions concerning responses from the Department 
of Justice should be directed to the Department of Justice.''
  Further questions I addressed to the RTC focused on a March 19, 1993, 
memo from the criminal division of Justice, concluding the initial RTC 
criminal referral on the Madison probe did not appear to warrant 
initiation of criminal investigations. I asked: ``A, how was this 
decision made in terms of the decisionmaking procedure and the 
underlying legal theory and, B, who is responsible for communicating 
these decision?''
  The RTC response to me was: ``A: This question should be directed to 
the Department of Justice. B: This question should be directed to the 
Department of Justice.''
  I then asked the question about press reports that the local Federal 
attorney in Little Rock was concerned that in 1992, because Bill 
Clinton was included in a referral of the decision to pursue, the case 
should be made in Washington. And he sent an urgent letter on October 
7, 1992, asking for assistance. I asked, ``Are the press reports 
accurate?'' And the answer to this one was, ``The question should be 
directed to the Department of Justice.''
  I further asked about Attorney General Barr in the previous 
administration, his concern that pursuing the case 1 month before the 
leaks would look as if the Justice Department was being politicized. So 
he sent the referral to career people. I asked the RTC, ``Is this the 
RTC's understanding of the events? If not, what is your 
understanding?'' The answer was, ``These questions should be directed 
to the Department of Justice.''
  Now, Mr. President, these are questions that we have been told by the 
RTC, whom we sought to question before the Banking Committee and in 
written questions following up on their testimony, these are questions 
the RTC said can only be asked of the Department of Justice.
  As I understood the distinguished majority leader in his response to 
my questions, I would not, under his proposal, be permitted to ask the 
Department of Justice about these specific items to which I was 
referred by the RTC for the very strange and unusual reasoning that 
they were not included in the special counsel's investigation.
  This is absurd, Mr. President. Congress is supposed to hold oversight 
hearings to ensure that programs are running fairly, that people are 
not abusing the power they hold, that special favors are not being 
handed out to the select.
  Now we are told: Too bad if it turns out that the Department of 
Justice grossly misused its powers in this case; too bad if it turns 
out that Webb Hubbell or others misused their authority to protect the 
President; too bad if the politically powerful got special favors from 
the Department of Justice. Congress is not going to be allowed to ask 
questions because Mr. Fiske, an appointee of the Justice Department, 
says so. To me this is an outrage.
  These facts, more than any others, show why this entire hearing 
proposed by the Democratic majority is a charade and a political 
sideshow.
  The majority leader has now come out and said he does not believe a 
98-to-nothing resolution, which says all matters relating --and this is 
the test he created, one that has taken 4 days of debate to ferret 
out--and that is, if Mr. Fiske does not care, the majority does not 
care; and if Mr. Fiske is not finished, Congress cannot start.
  I have introduced this amendment and I will shortly propose another 
amendment dealing specifically with the items in that 98-to-nothing 
resolution of March 17. Because if the limited scope of hearings 
proposed, and reiterated and reiterated and reiterated by the majority 
leader, is not changed, there will be no ability to ask these very 
relevant questions relating specifically to the Washington phase of the 
Whitewater investigation.
  I do not intend to submit my list of questions to Mr. Fiske to get 
his approval. I also expect that we will have an opportunity to address 
those questions.
  I have been taken with the compelling nature of several quotations 
which we have previously brought to the floor. A very thoughtful 
statement in 1991 on the need for congressional hearings on a proposed 
October Surprise:

       We have no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, but the 
     seriousness of the allegations, and the weight of 
     circumstantial information, compel an effort to establish the 
     facts.

  And the powerful statement came from the majority leader and the 
Speaker of the House.
  Another statement on November 22, 1991, in this body said:

       That is what this inquiry is intended to establish. I think 
     it raises a question, a fundamental question, in everyone's 
     mind. If one is so opposed to trying to find out the facts, 
     the question arises: What are they trying to hide? Why are 
     they so afraid of an inquiry? What is it that they are trying 
     to conceal?

  Those were made by the distinguished majority leader on November 22, 
1991, in a floor speech on the October Surprise.
  Mr. President, I think those questions are very appropriate questions 
to raise now.


                           Amendment No. 1792

   (Purpose: To authorize hearings on the sources of funding and the 
    lending practices of Capital Management Services, Inc., and its 
   supervision and regulation by the Small Business Administration, 
including loans to Susan McDougal and the alleged diversion of funds to 
                     Whitewater Development Corp.)

  Mr. BOND. Now, to accommodate the majority leader, I have assured him 
that, as we just discussed, there will be an opportunity to follow the 
procedure which we have developed, with which I do not agree, but that 
is the procedure that we are following.
  I now send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wofford). The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1792.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs shall 
     conduct an investigation into, study of, and hearings on, all 
     matters which have any tendency to reveal the full facts 
     about the sources of funding and the lending practices of 
     Capital Management Services, Inc., and its supervision and 
     regulation by the Small Business Administration, including 
     loans to Susan McDougal and the alleged diversion of funds to 
     Whitewater Development Corporation.

  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                Amendment No. 1793 to Amendment No. 1792

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

       The Senator from Maine [Mr. Mitchell] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1793 to amendment No. 1792.

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

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

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I would like to direct a question to the 
Senator from Missouri through the Chair.
  Did I understand that the Senator has a second amendment which he 
will offer?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, one of my colleagues has an amendment. We 
have not been able to reach him. He was planning to be here by about 
8:30. We are attempting to contact him to see if he has that amendment 
ready. I am not at this point able to produce that amendment. I 
apologize, but I have not been able to reach him.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I am trying to reduce the inconvenience 
to other Senators, and my effort is to have two amendments debated and 
then have those votes stacked in succession to give those Senators who 
are not present and attending to other duties a longer opportunity to 
do so.
  What I would like to suggest is that we agree on a time limit on the 
amendment of the Senator from Missouri of 30 or 40 minutes, equally 
divided, and then at or before the expiration of that time, if the 
Senator would be ready either on his own or in behalf of another 
Senator with a second amendment, we could have that amendment presented 
and debated for a similar length of time and then vote on both of those 
at about 8:45 to 9.
  I wonder whether that is satisfactory to the Senator?
  Mr. BOND. Excuse me, Mr. President, I was conferring with some 
others. I did not get the full import of the majority leader's 
statement.
  I would agree to 45 minutes, equally divided, which would put us at 
8:30, when my colleague would be ready to offer his amendment.
  If the majority leader wishes to set a later time for the vote on the 
two amendments, I at this point know of no objection on our side. If 
the majority leader wishes to do that, I will look for any contrary 
indication.
  At this point I seem to see none.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, in order to accommodate the largest 
number of Senators, what I will do momentarily is to propose that we do 
40 minutes, equally divided, on our amendments, at which time another 
Senator or designee be recognized on that side to offer an amendment 
which would also be the subject of a 40-minute agreement, and then 
Senators would have the assurance that there would be two votes after 
the expiration of the 80 minutes.
  Is that agreeable? May I have some assurance that there will be a 
second amendment after the 40 minutes of debate on this amendment has 
expired?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am advised the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. 
McConnell, will have an amendment and will be ready to proceed about 
8:30.
  I will certainly do all I can to see that that amendment proceeds in 
an expeditious fashion.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. MITCHELL. Then, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there 
now be 45 minutes for debate on the amendments offered by Senator Bond 
and myself with the time equally divided between us; that at 8:30 p.m., 
the Bond amendment and my amendment to that amendment be set aside and 
that Senator McConnell or his designee be recognized to offer an 
amendment, that I or my designee be recognized to offer a second-degree 
amendment to that amendment, and those amendments then be debated for 
40 minutes and that at the completion of that 40 minutes, or at 9:10 
p.m. this evening, the Senate vote on the pending Mitchell amendment; 
following the disposition of that amendment the Senate vote on the 
underlying Bond amendment as amended if amended; that following the 
disposition of that the Senate vote on the Mitchell amendment to the 
McConnell amendment; and that following the disposition of that 
amendment the Senate vote on the McConnell amendment as amended if 
amended; all of the above to occur without any intervening action or 
debate after 9:10 p.m.; and that the time, the 40 minutes of time for 
debate on the McConnell amendment and my amendment to his amendment, be 
equally divided between the Senator from Kentucky or his designee and 
myself or my designee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, for the benefit of Senators who are not 
present--and I assume some in their offices have been watching this--we 
now have pending an amendment by Senator Bond and my amendment to it. 
We have an assurance that Senator McConnell or his designee will be 
here at about 8:30 to offer another amendment and I or my designee will 
offer an amendment to that. That debate will go on until 9:10. So 
Senators should be notified that we now expect two votes to occur at 
9:10 p.m. And that following those votes, if there are to be more 
amendments on this bill, then we are going to stay in session and 
consider those other amendments and have additional votes.
  I thank my colleagues.
  Does the Senator now wish to address his amendment? I will be pleased 
to yield the floor to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, for the Record, let me explain what my 
amendment, were it not to be second-degree, would do. This amendment is 
one very directly relating to the issues surrounding Whitewater. As the 
terms of the March 17, 1994 resolution, adopted 98 to 0, say, we shall 
have hearings ``on all matters related to Madison Guaranty Savings and 
Loan Association, Whitewater Development Corporation, and Capital 
Management Services, Inc.''
  This is the Capital Management Services, Inc. portion of the request. 
This amendment expands the scope of the investigation to include 
matters relating to the sources of funding, the lending practices of 
Capital Management Services, Inc., and its supervision and regulation 
by the Small Business Administration, including loans to Susan McDougal 
and the alleged diversion of funds to Whitewater Development 
Corporation.
  This amendment would authorize the committee to investigate all 
transactions involving David Hale and his SBA-licensed small business 
investment company, which is Capital Management Services, Inc., 
including the circumstances involving Mr. Hale's recent plea bargain 
with Special Prosecutor Fiske. David Hale, a former Arkansas municipal 
court judge, appointed by then-Governor Clinton, controlled Capital 
Management Services, Inc. Capital Management was a special small 
business investment company authorized to make loans to businesses at 
least 50-percent owned, controlled, and managed by socioeconomically 
disadvantaged individuals.
  Judge Hale allegedly made a $300,000 loan to Master Marketing, a 
company owned by one of the principals of Whitewater, one Susan 
McDougal. Part of the loan's proceeds may have been used to fund 
Whitewater-related activities.
  On September 15, 1993 the SBA placed Judge Hale's company, Capital 
Management Services, in receivership for capital impairment.
  Why is this of interest to this body? Why is this of interest to the 
people of America? Because the SBA, on whose oversight committee I 
happen to serve--the Small Business Committee--the SBA estimates that 
Capital Management's insolvency will cost the American taxpayers $3.4 
million. The taxpayers will have to pay the $3.4 million cost of 
Capital Management's failure, and they have a right to know whether 
loans were improperly made and whether certain loan proceeds were used 
to fund Whitewater activities.
  One of the questions involving Capital Management and David Hale that 
taxpayers need an answer to include: Were federally guaranteed SBA 
loans made directly or indirectly to fund Whitewater-related 
activities?
  In March 1986, Whitewater entered into a contract to purchase an 810-
acre tract of land south of Little Rock from International Paper Realty 
Co. One month later, in April of 1986, Capital Management made Susan 
McDougal's company, Master Marketing, a $300,000 SBA-backed loan. 
According to a document provided by David Hale, $193,000 of the 
$300,000 loan to Susan McDougal was intended to be used to develop the 
land Whitewater had just purchased from International Paper.
  Judge David Hale allegedly claims that Bill Clinton and James 
McDougal pressured him into making the $300,000 loan to Susan McDougal. 
The $300,000 loan to Susan McDougal's company was never repaid, and the 
SBA closed Capital Management in 1993.
  To lay out the facts raises the kind of fundamental questions in 
everyone's mind that we in this body have sought to answer in previous 
congressional investigations of the executive branch. What I want to 
know in the offering of the second-degree amendment which is designed 
to wipe out and preclude the Banking Committee from asking these 
Whitewater-related questions of the SBA and others is, what is the 
amendment trying to hide? Why are its proponents so afraid of an 
inquiry? What is it that they, in this instance the majority, are 
trying to conceal?
  If past practice is indicative, there will be a party-line vote to 
adopt a second-degree amendment that will wipe out all of the questions 
that I just asked.
  These questions were questions that were initially approved by this 
body in the March 17, 1994 resolution which said that we should look 
into all matters relating to Whitewater and the Capital Management 
Services. These are questions that I think must rightfully be asked. I 
think the people of America have the right to expect to get clear 
answers from those who were involved, those who put taxpayers' money at 
risk and those who caused a loss to taxpayers.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum 
and ask that time be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. 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.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, the Senate will now debate and vote for 
the eighth time on the same issue. The Senator from Missouri used three 
words that I think represent the best description of his amendment 
better than any I could use, and I will quote them: Absurd, charade, 
sideshow.
  The Senate has now reached a point of an absurd charade that is a 
sideshow. We are now on the fourth full legislative day, stretching 
over 6 calendar days debating and voting over and over and over and 
over and over and over again on the same issue. This is a waste of 
time. It is a waste of taxpayers' money. It subjects the Senate to the 
kind of ridicule to which, unfortunately, the American people have 
become so accustomed.
  An American citizen watching the Senate over the past several days 
might well ask: ``Is this all they have to do? Do our Senators in 
Washington, DC, our Nation's Capital, have nothing better to do than to 
debate the same issue over and over and over again eight times and vote 
on the same issue over and over and over again eight times with the 
same result eight times?'' And they would be right.
  Let me go back and set the context of this amendment.
  Earlier this year, our Republican colleagues requested the 
appointment of a special counsel to investigate the so-called 
Whitewater matter. A special counsel was appointed. He is a Republican, 
a lifelong Republican whose appointment was praised by our Republican 
colleagues. We were told by them that he is a man of experience and 
integrity, and they applauded his appointment.
  Following his appointment, that special counsel, a lifelong 
Republican whose appointment was applauded by Republican Senators, 
requested in writing on his own initiative that the Senate not conduct 
hearings into matters that were the subject of his investigation 
because to do so might undermine his investigation and might make it 
impossible for him, if he finds wrongdoing, to prosecute and punish 
those responsible for the wrongdoing.
  But immediately after the appointment of the special counsel, our 
Republican colleagues completely reverse their course and begin calling 
for precisely those hearings which the special counsel asked not occur.
  Why, Americans might ask, would they do such a thing? Why would they 
completely reverse their position on this matter after having gotten 
the appointment that they said they wanted of a person who is a member 
of their party and whose appointment they praised?
  The answer has become clear in the subsequent events. They are not 
interested in a serious investigation. They want a political circus in 
which to attack and demean and harm the reputation of the President of 
the United States and the First Lady of the United States. That is what 
this is all about, and the American people know that.
  Consistently, month after month, public opinion polls have reported 
that a large majority of Americans believe that the Republicans are 
doing this only for political purposes. What has happened in the last 
few days provides overwhelming evidence that the American public is 
right.

  After they requested immediate hearings, contrary to the stated 
desires of the special counsel, whose appointment they initially 
praised, the Senate debated and discussed the matter. On March 17, the 
Senate voted by a vote of 98 to 0 that there would be hearings. ``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 was the 
Senate vote.
  Now, along come our Republican colleagues, having voted for that 
resolution, and completely reverse their position again. They are 
demanding that hearings occur structured and sequenced in a way that 
would directly interfere with the investigation of the special 
counsel--another complete reversal of position.
  In behalf of the Republicans, Senator D'Amato offered an amendment to 
conduct hearings way beyond what the special counsel requested.
  He asked that since his investigation is divided into two phases, the 
hearings conducted by the Congress be divided into two phases. And that 
when he finished the first phase of his investigation, the Congress 
hold the first phase of its hearings. And that when he then finished 
the second phase of his investigation, the Congress have hearings on 
the second phase.
  The amendment offered by Republican colleagues did not do that. It 
wanted all of the subjects included in the first phase of the hearings, 
exactly what the special counsel asked not be done.
  I then offered an alternative amendment which was consistent both 
with the Senate's vote of March 17 and with the special counsel's 
request, and I offered to our Republican colleagues to bring the matter 
up as a separate bill and to let them have a vote on their amendment 
and we would have a vote on my amendment, and whatever the Senate voted 
would be accepted.
  They rejected that offer. They did not accept an agreement under 
which they would get a vote on their amendment and we would have a vote 
on my amendment as a separate bill unrelated to other legislation.
  Instead, they chose to offer their amendment to an unrelated bill, an 
airport improvements bill. I then offered my amendment as a second-
degree amendment to theirs. We were ready to vote on it last Thursday. 
But after they, for weeks, said we want a vote on Whitewater, we want 
hearings on Whitewater, when we were ready to vote, they would not 
vote. They delayed a vote for 4 days, prevented a vote from occurring. 
The reason, when we got to the vote, was obvious. Their amendment was 
decisively rejected, and the alternative, which I proposed, was 
accepted.
  Now what has happened since then, having lost on their amendment, 
they have now taken each paragraph of their overall amendment, lifted 
them out and offered them as separate amendments. That is to say, a 
subject which the Senate has already debated, voted on and rejected, is 
now being raised in separate, individual amendments for the obvious 
purpose of delay and obstruction.
  The amendment which the Senate has already approved provides that we 
will have hearings on the subjects that are the first phase of the 
special counsel's investigation. That is what we voted to do in March, 
and that is what the special counsel has requested.
  Our colleagues, by contrast, have come in here--this amendment is a 
perfect example--and sought to include in the first phase of the 
hearings the very subjects which the special counsel has said he does 
not want included in the first phase of these hearings because they are 
involved in the second phase of his investigation.
  Now, over and over again our colleagues, and the Senator from 
Missouri himself, have called the proposal that I have made a sham. He 
has used that word several times.
  Mr. President, just a few moments ago the bipartisan leadership of 
the House of Representatives has agreed to conduct hearings under an 
agreement which is virtually identical, almost word for word, with the 
proposal that I have made and the Senate has adopted.
  Is it the Senator's contention that the House Republicans are 
participating in a sham? This agreement exposes our Republican 
colleagues in the Senate as engaging in obstruction, in absurd 
practices, solely for the purpose of delay and solely for the purpose 
of attacking the President and First Lady of the United States. That is 
their motive.
  They have now had 4 days of flinging accusations at the President, 
some--and not the Senator from Missouri; I wish to make it clear--some 
making reckless, unsubstantiated, unproven allegations trying to link 
the President and Mrs. Clinton to lurid activities. So we heard here on 
the Senate floor in the course of this debate there have been four 
verified attempts on a person's life. We heard here on the Senate floor 
during this debate about ``money laundering,'' and a number of other 
lurid accusations that are unsubstantiated, that there is no 
relationship whatsoever to the President and First Lady of the United 
States, but tossed out there in a classic example of innuendo.
  All Americans have heard the word innuendo. Some may wonder what it 
actually means. The dictionary describes it as a veiled attempt to 
injure a person's character or reputation. That is what we have seen 
out here during the course of some of this debate by some of our 
colleagues.
  Mr. President, we ought to get on with the business of the Senate and 
the country. The House Republicans and the House Democrats have reached 
an agreement to hold hearings that are in a form virtually identical to 
that which I have proposed and which the Senate has adopted. Why then, 
I ask, are our Republican colleagues in the Senate engaging in such 
obstruction and delay, wasting time, wasting taxpayers' money for no 
useful purpose, in a manner inconsistent with the vote of the Senate 
itself, for which our colleagues themselves voted, and inconsistent 
with the request of the special counsel?
  Mr. President, lest there be any doubt about the actions of the 
House, I am going to read the statement from the joint leadership of 
the House. I ask my colleagues to compare it with the words of my 
amendment which the Senate has already adopted.
  The bipartisan House leadership has reached agreement on holding 
several days of public hearings on three aspects of the so-called 
Whitewater investigation now being conducted by Special Counsel Robert 
B. Fiske, Jr. This agreement is consistent with the provisions of H. 
Res. 394, adopted by the House on March 22, 1994, which states that any 
hearings conducted by the House committees should be structured and 
sequenced so that they will ``not interfere with the ongoing 
investigation of Special Counsel Robert B. Fiske, Jr.'' and is based on 
Mr. Fiske's statement to the bipartisan leadership that his review of 
those three areas is very close to conclusion and that Congressional 
inquiry into those three areas, once he has completed investigation 
into them, will not impede his overall investigation. Mr. Fiske has 
specifically asked the bipartisan leadership to refrain from 
Congressional inquiry into the other aspects of his investigation for 
now.
  The three subjects of the public hearings will be: the White House 
contacts with Treasury/RTC officials about ``Whitewater''-related 
matters; whether the death of Assistant White House Counsel Vincent 
Foster was a homicide or a suicide; and the White House's handling of 
the contents of Foster's office during the investigation into Foster's 
death.
  The bipartisan leadership has agreed that hearings on these three 
areas will be held by the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 
Affairs and that all Members of have committee will have timely, equal 
access to necessary documents and may be assisted by staff of other 
committees of the House.
  The hearings will begin within 30 days of notification by Mr. Fiske 
that he has completed his investigation into these three areas.
  Mr. President, I repeat. This is almost exactly what I have proposed, 
what the Senate itself has adopted, and which our Republican colleagues 
in the Senate simply will not accept. Instead, after first clamoring 
for a vote, when confronted with the reality of a vote and the prospect 
of defeat, they delayed it for 4 days. And now that the vote has 
occurred, with an outcome contrary to their wishes, they have engaged 
in obstructionist tactics, wasting time, wasting money, wasting effort. 
For what end? The only end is to attack the President and Mrs. Clinton.
  Well, I say to my colleagues that 4 days to attack the President and 
Mrs. Clinton, I think, is about enough. Why do we not pass the 
resolution that we have already voted on? The House Democratic and 
Republican leadership have completed agreement on it. They are going to 
proceed as I have suggested. If it is such a bad idea, why did they 
accept it in the House by the leadership of both parties?
  Let us get on to complete action on this. Let us pass the airport 
improvement bill. Let us get to the rest of the work of the Senate. The 
American people expect us to do our work. We have to do 13 
appropriations bills before the end of this fiscal year. I hope to 
start on one tomorrow.
  We have to do health care. We have to do welfare reform. We have to 
do a crime bill. They did not send us here to debate and vote on the 
same issue 8 or 18 or 80 times. In their lives and in our Nation's 
business, when we make a decision, we make a decision, and we accept it 
and we go on. But we have made a decision, and I urge our colleagues to 
accept it. We have had the vote. In fact, we voted eight times, the 
same subject. Now we are going to vote on it two more times at 9 p.m. 
and 10 p.m. We will vote the 9th and 10th times on the very same issue.
  Mr. President, I hope our colleagues will agree that 10 times voting 
on the same issue is enough, and that we not waste any more of the 
Senate's time, that we not waste any more of the country's time, that 
we not waste any more of the taxpayers' money, that we complete action 
on this, that we emulate the House leadership and act in a responsible 
and reasonable way--not try to engage in a political circus, but act in 
a responsible and reasonable way to get this investigation underway, to 
get this bill behind us.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  I ask unanimous consent that the statement issued by the House of 
Representatives entitled ``House Hearings on Whitewater'' be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      House Hearings on Whitewater

       The bipartisan House leadership has reached agreement on 
     holding several days of public hearings on three aspects of 
     the so-called Whitewater investigation now being conducted by 
     Special Counsel Robert B. Fiske, Jr. This agreement is 
     consistent with the provisions of H. Res. 394, adopted by the 
     House on March 22, 1994, which states that any hearings 
     conducted by House committees should be structured and 
     sequenced so that they will ``not interfere with the on-going 
     investigation of Special Counsel Robert B. Fiske, Jr.'' and 
     is based on Mr. Fiske's statement to the bipartisan 
     leadership that his review of these three areas is very close 
     to conclusion and that Congressional inquiry into these three 
     areas, once he has completed investigation into them, will 
     not impede his overall investigation. Mr. Fiske has 
     specifically asked the bipartisan leadership to refrain from 
     Congressional inquiry into the other aspects of his 
     investigation for now.
       The three subjects of the public hearings will be: the 
     White House contacts with Treasury/RTC officials about 
     ``Whitewater''-related matters; whether the death of 
     Assistant White House Counsel Vincent Foster was a homicide 
     or a suicide; and the White House's handling of the contents 
     of Foster's office during the investigation into Foster's 
     death.
       The bipartisan leadership has agreed that hearings on these 
     three areas will be held by the Committee on Banking, Finance 
     and Urban Affairs and that all Members of that Committee will 
     have timely, equal access to necessary documents and may be 
     assisted by staff of other committees of the House. The 
     hearings will begin within thirty days of notification by Mr. 
     Fiske that he has completed his investigation into these 
     three areas.

  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, may I ask how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14 minutes.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require.
  Mr. President, several items that were raised by the distinguished 
majority leader I think merit some comment. He was correct saying that 
I did use the terms ``absurd'', ``charade'', ``sideshow.'' I think I 
probably even used ``fig leaf'' and ``sham.'' Those were all terms that 
I believe I applied to the effort to second-degree all of the 
amendments offered on this side which are designed specifically to get 
at information which I believe this body has an obligation to explore 
because they relate to very clear potential acts of misdoing, 
wrongdoing by the administration.
  I could not say it any better than the majority leader said it when 
he was arguing for investigations of the ``October Surprise,'' and 
other things.
  I call to my colleagues' attention that even when there were 
Republicans in the White House and Republicans in control of the 
Senate, we led full investigations on Iran-Contra, John Fedders at the 
SEC, Charles Wick at the USIA, and William Casey of the CIA. We were 
even able to walk and chew gum at the same time because we held 
concurrent investigations with the independent counsel and Congress. It 
is possible. We can do two things at once in this town. The EPA 
Superfund and Anne Buford were investigated by both an independent 
counsel and Congress. So was Michael Deaver, and so was Iran-Contra.
  So it is quite possible that we can go forward with investigations 
even though the special counsel has undertaken investigations.
  Let me be clear on one thing. The very first call, I believe, from 
our distinguished Republican leader, Senator Dole, on December 21, 
1993, was for full congressional hearings on the Whitewater matter. 
When the Department of Justice acted subsequently to appoint a special 
prosecutor--and certainly I was one who said, from everything I had 
heard about his reputation, that he is a very qualified person--when 
they appointed a special prosecutor to pursue and ferret out potential 
criminal wrongdoing, we thought that was a good step. But it did not 
change in any way the obligation that this body has to conduct 
oversight hearings into agencies over which we have authorizing 
legislative authority and appropriations authority. We have already set 
out in a number of instances why and where we believe that improper 
actions were taken in Washington, DC.
  The majority leader has just developed a very powerful argument 
against an amendment I did not raise, against charges that I did not 
make. The special counsel did not look into contacts between the 
Department of Justice and the White House with respect to the criminal 
referrals or any of the matters relating to Whitewater. I believe that 
we have a responsibility to ask those questions. The special prosecutor 
has not been involved in those areas, to my knowledge.
  To my knowledge, he certainly has not asked me, and according to the 
majority leader, he did not ask him not to hold investigations which 
question the Department of Justice, its officials, or former officials. 
That special prosecutor who said no when we asked, ``Mother, may I?'' 
does not work for the Department of Justice investigations. The special 
prosecutor does not have any veto over what we can look into.
  The majority leader makes much of the actions he reports from the 
House of Representatives. So be it. If that is what that body wishes to 
do, that is fine. I believe that we have a responsibility to ask other 
questions. And that is why I have proposed an amendment, which was just 
second degreed out of existence, to interview the Department of Justice 
to look into their activities and now to get into what the SBA was 
doing with respect specifically to Capital Management Services.

  When we look at the money the taxpayers lost, it was not only through 
the federally insured savings and loan, it was also through an SBA-
backed firm called Capital Management. It was not until the spring of 
1993 that SBA determined the extent of problems that existed within 
Capital Management, and an internal investigation was begun of David 
Hale's practices.
  On May 20, 1993, the SBA inspector general made a criminal referral 
on Capital Management Services to the Justice Department which then 
initiated an investigation. On July 20, 1993, the FBI received approval 
of a search warrant, and on July 21, they raided CMS and seized a 
series of loan files. Among the loan files seized was Master Marketing, 
the firm operated by Susan McDougal. Then on September 15, 1993, the 
SBA placed Capital Management Services, Inc. in receivership because of 
capital impairment. On September 23, David Hale was indicted for fraud.
  What is important and relevant about these events? Why do we believe 
they should include a thorough review of David Hale and Capital 
Management Services? Well, Mr. Hale has claimed that the President's 
business partner in Whitewater Development, Jim McDougal, approached 
him about making a $150,000 loan from CMS to McDougal. He then claims 
that shortly after that conversation, in early January 1986, he bumped 
into then-Governor Clinton and was asked by the Governor if he was 
going to be able to ``help Jim out.'' Mr. Hale stated publicly that he 
was told that these funds were needed by McDougal to handle some 
irregularities which would otherwise show up in the next savings and 
loan audit of Madison Guaranty.
  The Federal Home Loan Bank Board audit was due to occur in the March-
April time period of 1986, and it became the audit which caused 
McDougal's ouster from the S&L and led, eventually, to the entire board 
being removed, as well as a series of prosecutions in which the head of 
Madison's board pleaded guilty to falsifying loan records. Hale also 
claimed that in mid-February of 1986, he received a call from McDougal 
asking whether he would meet with him and then-Governor Clinton. Hale 
states that he met with them and was urged to help them out by making 
the loan.
  It seems to me that as we try to get to the bottom of the case, 
Congress should have the right to ask questions about those alleged 
meetings and conversations. Criminal prosecutions have already gone 
forward in those areas. We are not looking at areas which might 
interfere with the special prosecutor's investigation because criminal 
charges have already been brought. The statements by Mr. Hale have been 
disputed both by the White House and McDougal. Thus, it makes sense to 
have an opportunity and a forum in which to lay out the claims and sort 
out the truth.
  While there may be disputes about who talked to whom, there is no 
dispute as to what occurred next. On April 3, 1986, CMS loaned the 
$300,000 to Susan McDougal. It was the largest loan made in the 7 years 
of CMS's existence, twice the size of previous loans. It was a 12-
percent promissory note for $300,000, a payment of interest only of 
$36,000 for the first and second years, then $14,000 a month, including 
interest, in subsequent years.
  The check was deposited into a McDougal account at Madison Guaranty 
and, within days, over $150,000 was drawn out to pay other McDougal 
land deals. We believe that $25,000 was used as a downpayment on a 
second Whitewater Development Corp. land purchase south of Little Rock, 
and that over $111,000 was transferred into another McDougal project 
called Flowerwood Farms. None of this money went to the working capital 
of Master Marketing.
  All of this leads to questions about the SBA and their activities. 
Note very clearly that this is a question that goes to the functioning 
of the Small Business Administration. How can an SBA program designed 
for one purpose be allowed to go so far afield? Should the SBA tighten 
up its regulation and supervision of the small business investment 
companies? I believe Congress clearly has an interest in reviewing and 
potentially revising the way this program is administered.
  Mr. President, it is important to realize that the $300,000 loan made 
to Master Marketing was improper in just about every way.
  One, the recipient was clearly not disadvantaged.
  Two, the money was not used for its stated purpose.
  Three, the money was used for real estate purchases, which violates 
the prohibition on the use of SBIC funds for real estate.
  Four, it was never repaid.
  Fifth, the Federal Government and the U.S. taxpayers ended up holding 
the tab.
  This means, once again, that the taxpayers were paying the tab for 
activities in the Whitewater field. I believe the number of questions 
all this raises, once again, shows why hearings are so important and 
why the Mitchell second-degree amendment, with its narrow scope, 
designed to preclude our inquiry into these matters, is totally off the 
mark.
  Mr. President, the people of the United States have the right to get 
some answers, and I do believe it is a sham and a fig leaf to keep 
blocking the inquiry, or even a vote on these questions, by offering 
the same second-degree amendment. These are issues that will be 
explored; these are issues that need to be brought out; and I cannot 
understand, in light of the very strong commitment of the majority 
leader, shown in investigating acts of wrongdoing or potential 
wrongdoing in previous Republican administrations, why they should be 
so objectionable and so feared that they need to be second degreed out 
before this body can vote on them.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. How much time is left on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 40 seconds on each side.
  Mr. FORD. Does the Senator want to finish his 1 minute 40 seconds?
  Mr. BOND. I will yield first to my colleague from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. I thought so.
  Mr. President, let me make two quick points, if I may. We have heard 
these arguments over and over again. They are getting so repetitious 
that we know them by heart now. So it does not take long to just keep 
on, keep on, keep on. What we are doing is seeing that this side is 
beginning to get pushed into a corner. Even the joint leadership in the 
House have agreed basically to what we are trying to do, which the 
special counsel has said is basically fair and meets his goal.
  So now we find that everybody, basically, except this group--and 
maybe they will keep right on--has seen that this is the best route to 
go in fairness and in completion and in competent investigation.
  Mr. President, we have had eight votes, I believe, and we are getting 
ready to have two more, and probably some more before the night is 
over, and we are delaying millions and millions of dollars that ought 
to be going to every State to build airports, to help their airways, to 
see that those people who paid a 10 percent tax on their airline 
ticket--their money that has gone into entitlements, any airport 
improvement, and many other things in the bill. But we are delaying and 
preventing the construction season to get underway. We are preventing 
the people from taking advantage of the tax dollars and the time.
  So, Mr. President, I hope they get off this bill, let me get it 
passed so I can go to conference and have it done before July 1.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, with respect to the votes that we have had 
here, we have attempted to focus an investigation that we believe is in 
the best interest of the American people. We have seen millions of 
dollars lost. There have been substantial indications of lax practices 
by agencies, financial agencies in the Treasury, the RTC, perhaps even 
wrongdoing in the Department of Justice or failure to follow 
procedures.
  Certainly, in the amendment before us right now we have practices by 
the SBA, the Small Business Administration, which are not defensible.
  I simply ask our colleagues to allow us to ask questions in this 
Whitewater-related matter that would help us determine whether there 
are changes that need to be made in the SBA.
  House Republicans were forced to accept a very limited scope 
amendment. Of course, they were. Everybody knows that the Rules 
Committee in the House does not allow the minority party to have votes 
or to conduct investigations.
  In the past, this body has on a Democrat and Republican basis had the 
opportunity to debate issues on a much broader basis, raise questions 
and generally to get an up-or-down vote. We are being denied an up-or-
down vote. But the people of America should know that a vote for the 
second-degree amendment is a vote not to investigate the SBA and 
Capital Management Services just as a vote for the second-degree 
amendment on the last issue was a vote not to look into the Department 
of Justice contacts with the White House.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Under the previous order, the junior Senator from Kentucky was to be 
recognized.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, since obviously the junior Senator from 
Kentucky is not now present in the Chamber, 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. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, has the Bond amendment been temporarily 
laid aside?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has. The bill is open to amendment.


                           Amendment No. 1794

  (Purpose: To authorize hearings on any issues developed during, or 
           arising out of, the Whitewater oversight hearings)

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

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1794.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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 any issues developed during, or arising out of, the 
     hearings conducted by the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs under this Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                Amendment No. 1795 to amendment No. 1794

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], for Mr. Mitchell, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1795 to amendment No. 1794.

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

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

  Mr. FORD. We have already voted on it nine times.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 17\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the underlying amendment that I sent to 
the desk continues our rather lengthy discussion about the appropriate 
way in which the Congress and particularly the Senate should exercise 
its oversight responsibility in what has been widely described as the 
Whitewater affair.
  Mr. President, at this rate the big scandal voters will take into the 
voting booth with them this November, I fear, is not Whitewater but 
whitewash. Operation Whitewash. The congressional coverup.
  Understandably, members of the President's party, and the White 
House, would like to sweep it all under the rug, pretend Whitewater 
never existed, deride as politics any effort by Republicans to explore 
the matter in a congressional forum. That is, Mr. President, as if 
politics was somehow an alien presence in this place.
  Not that politics had anything to do with the 25--I repeat--25 
congressional investigations of administration matters during the 
Presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George Bush. Twenty-five times, Mr. 
President, 25 times during those 12 years frustrated Democrats hoped in 
vain that each was political manna. Oh no, it was said, those were 
instances where Congress needed to ``do its job,'' protect the American 
people, it was said, air the issues, explore the charges, conduct 
oversight on behalf of the American people.
  That is what was said by our friends on the other side of the aisle 
when it was a Republican in the White House, Mr. President. We are just 
trying to make the point here that what is good for the goose is good 
for the gander, and it is pretty hard to explain away those 25 
congressional investigations in terms of what has been happening here 
when the occupant of the White House happens to be of a different 
party.
  Mr. President, I do not think the whitewash will wash with the 
American people. Congressional Democrats can delay, dawdle, deny, 
dither, and detour ad infinitum--because they run this place. All of 
it--the House and the Senate. But do not think people will not sit up 
and take notice.
  Democrats hold the keys to open the door to the truth. But at most, 
at least so far, they are willing only to put the keys in the door 
after they are darn sure the deadbolt and chain have been firmly put in 
place.
  The voters, Mr. President, want us to kick the door in, all the way 
in, wide open. They want the whole truth. They want it all out on the 
table where everybody can take a look at it. They want to judge for 
themselves, Mr. President, whether it is all political, whether it is 
all media hype, as our friends on the other side contend. Americans are 
tired of the spin. It is not enough to hold rigged hearings, carefully 
crafted to avoid airing troublesome issues contained under the 
Whitewater umbrella.
  Now, Mr. President, the underlying amendment which I have sent 
forward assures that when hearings are held--it is a very simple 
amendment--when hearings are held, whether according to the Democrat or 
Republican blueprint, if any new issues develop during the hearings or 
arise out of them, the oversight committee could pursue them.
  Let me repeat, Mr. President. It is not complicated here.
  In fact, I suspect it is the way every congressional hearing we have 
ever had around here has been conducted; that is, if any new issue 
arose, no matter which set of guidelines were adopted, a majority set 
of guidelines for the hearings or a Republican set of guidelines for 
the hearings, no matter which set of guidelines we were pursuing, if a 
new issue developed, the oversight committee would be free to pursue 
them.
  I suggest, Mr. President, that no other approach to the matter makes 
any sense whatsoever. For any committee investigating any subject to 
conclude in advance that some new item brought to light by testimony 
before the committee had to be ignored is utter nonsense.
  So what I am suggesting, Mr. President, in the underlying amendment 
is that the committee, no matter which set of guidelines the Senate 
ultimately adopted to pursue the oversight hearing, be free to go into 
any matter brought to light by the hearing.
  That is why we have hearings--to learn. Frequently in public 
hearings, as a matter of fact, virtually all of the time in a public 
hearing around this place or any other legislative body, new things 
come to light. That is why we have hearings.
  So I want to make it clear, Mr. President--and I would hope the 
Senate would share that view--that no matter what the parameters of the 
hearings in the beginning, that any new matter brought to light could 
be pursued. This would at least, Mr. President, partially loosen the 
straitjacket that the majority leader's proposal seeks to put the 
committee in. Bear in mind, the Democratic leader, the majority 
leader's proposal, puts the committee in a straitjacket, allows it to 
pursue only certain items.
  I am sure it will be discussed here on the floor tonight that the 
House Republicans have essentially agreed with the majority over in the 
other body to the same stipulations that the majority leader is 
offering us here.
  I would say that this is not the House. This is the Senate. And, of 
course, the minority in the House is in a very poor negotiating 
position. As we all know, the House of Representatives is largely like 
a triangle. At the top of the triangle is the Speaker and the chairman 
of the Rules Committee, and they can run the place because House rules 
simply do not allow the kind of latitude, either to individual House 
Members or to the minority party, that you have here in the Senate. So 
the poor House Republicans have to take the best deal they can get and 
are not in a position, under the rules of the House, to leverage 
anything better. So the House Republicans speak for themselves on this 
matter. We all understand the constraints within which they operate 
because of House rules.
  Here in the Senate, it is different. There are some levers available 
to the minority, one of which we have been pursuing over the last week 
or so, to try to get an open, objective evaluation of what may or may 
not be a problem with regard to the Whitewater matter.
  Now the independent counsel, Mr. Fiske, was given more latitude and 
authority than the congressional oversight committee is granted under 
the majority leader's proposal that we were discussing, and a similar 
one the House Republicans acceded to on their side because of their 
rules. The independent counsel was given a mandate to investigate 
allegations or evidence ``developed during, connected with or arising 
out'' of his primary investigation.
  Mr. President, if the independent counsel is given this authority, 
the Senate certainly ought to be provided the same latitude. Our 
opportunities under the proposal by the majority leader are 
considerably more circumscribed than that of the independent counsel. 
It seems to me a most unfortunate restriction.
  Let us not forget that public knowledge of the White House 
interference with the ongoing RTC investigation of Madison Guaranty 
arose out a routine oversight hearing earlier this year. That sort of 
illustrates the point I am trying to make here with my amendment, Mr. 
President; that you cannot entirely anticipate what is going to come up 
in a hearing. You have witnesses who come before it. Are they going to 
tell the truth? Senators are going to ask questions in a variety of 
areas. You cannot just decide in advance that you are going to ignore 
new information that may arise.
  So the purpose of the underlying amendment that is at the desk is to 
give the committee the authority to pursue any new matter which might 
arise during the course of the hearing, regardless of what kind of 
blueprint for the hearing was adopted in the beginning.
  It would be ludicrous, perfectly ludicrous, Mr. President, to confine 
a committee, any committee, in its investigation of Whitewater. That is 
why, as I said earlier, it could be rightly construed as whitewash. If 
you have such a narrow line of inquiry that it simply hogties the 
committee and allows it not to pursue legitimate areas of inquiry, one 
could only call that whitewash.
  Mr. President, I am afraid that is what it would come down to if we 
pursued this matter with these kinds of rigid guidelines. The main 
issue is, are we going to pursue the truth, or are we going to maintain 
some kind of coverup here by so restricting whatever committee is 
ultimately established in the inquiry?
  At this juncture, Mr. President, I think it is important to remember 
that Whitewater, if it is a problem, is the President's problem. If the 
Congress, and in particular if the Senate, continues to stonewall over 
full and fair hearings, then whitewash will be the problem of the 
Senate. Whitewater will be the President's problem; whitewash will be 
our problem.
  It seems to me, Mr. President, regardless of party affiliation, the 
last thing the Senate would want to engage in is drawing itself into 
this Whitewater matter by engaging in activities that the public could 
rightly construe as whitewash. We do not make Whitewater any better by 
having whitewash here in the Senate.
  In closing, I am reminded of the countless times we have heard from 
people on both sides of the aisle here, mainly on the other side. I 
remember, during the Reagan and Bush years I used to hear, ``What are 
the Republicans afraid of?'' ``What are the Republicans afraid of?''
  I think it is fair to ask folks on the other side, our good friends: 
What are the Democrats afraid of? What is the White House afraid of? If 
there is no problem here, Mr. President, why do we not go ahead and 
have the oversight hearings?
  We did it 25 times. Twenty-five times during the Reagan-Bush years we 
had oversight hearings. I do not recall any of them being restricted. I 
do not remember every single one of them. I did not serve here all of 
that time, but I remember many of them. They ranged far and wide and 
made a legitimate attempt to get all the questions out there and to get 
as many answers as they could get.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that we will allow the kind of inquiry that 
the American public demands. And, just because the administration may 
have a Whitewater problem--may not; we do not know yet--let us not 
create a whitewash problem for us here in the Senate.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, how much time does each side have left now? 
We vote at 9:10; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct, 9:10.
  The senior Senator from Kentucky has 17 minutes and 20 seconds, and 3 
minutes and 50 seconds remain for the other side.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I find myself in an awkward position, since 
all these lawyers get up and argue all the many proposals and ways of 
doing things. They are pretty good word merchants--pretty good word 
merchants. It is difficult for me, sometimes, to try to find a way to 
express myself that would be sufficient for the general public to 
understand what I am honestly trying to do and what I think is honestly 
trying to be accomplished here.
  The amendment that we have before us, the underlying amendment, is 
perhaps the classic example of the process the Senate has been going 
through, that has been ongoing for the last several days. I would have 
to ask the lawyers. My dad always said a little knowledge of the law is 
dangerous. Get you a good lawyer and stay with him--or her. But as I 
read this amendment, you can do anything, anytime, anywhere that you 
want to. This is not limited to anything. It is wide open. It just says 
they authorize hearings on any and all issues.
  They did not say limit it to Whitewater. It does not say limited to 
X, Y, or Z. But the amendment says ``to any and all issues that might 
arise.''
  I do not know what issues are going to arise. They do not, either. 
But, boy, it sure does give them a broad door to go through. And I do 
not think that that is what we are trying to do.
  So I hope what we are trying to do here is not make the mistakes of 
the past, but to be sure that what we do in our hearings just does not 
jeopardize any prosecution in the future--which we have experienced in 
the past. What you see in the amendment of the majority leader that I 
sent to the desk reflects that March 17 resolution. Full hearings will 
be conducted. I do not think there is any doubt about that, that full 
hearings will be conducted. But they will be done in phases. I think 
that is proper. The special counsel has said: This is what I would like 
for you to do in order for me to conduct a complete and thorough 
investigation. If I find wrongdoing, proceed to the courts.
  I think that is straightforward. We will have full hearings and they 
will be conducted, but they need to be conducted in phases to be sure 
we do not jeopardize the special counsel's pursuit of information.
  This amendment would authorize hearings on any and all issues that 
might--that might--arise, as the Senate conducts its hearings, with no 
limit, with no necessary reliance on anything that is before the Senate 
as a resolution, to get into whatever is there. Broad. Get in. Reach. 
The special counsel has asked us not to do that.
  We have been going for some time and I guess we are getting ready to 
vote the 9th and 10th times on the identical language. As I said 
earlier, there has only been one vote different, and one Senator was 
necessarily absent from the Senate Chamber and that Senator did not 
vote, so that was one change. That Senator is now back and the votes, I 
believe, are identical. They have been that way for every vote.
  I have worked since last November to put together an airport 
improvement reauthorization bill that has many things in it for many 
States. Every State in the Union will have entitlements. Every State in 
the Union will be entitled to discretionary money. Since the junior 
Senator from New York has been the leader in this, I have tried to 
explain to him that last fiscal year, New York received $81 million 
from this bill and next year it probably will be more; that he is now 
stopping the entitlements that are due that State under the law--$25 
million this year, $25 million next year, and $25 million the year 
after that. All States have that. That is in this bill.
  I could go down the line. I think I have tried to accommodate in this 
bill every Senator on both sides of the aisle. In fact, we had one come 
tonight who wanted a colloquy, wanted to get it in. We read it, 
improved it, changed a word or two. I am ready to get it in. I guess I 
could do it now, but it would get all mixed up in this debate that has 
been going on, now, for days.
  I would like to get the bill behind us. It seems to me we have been 
repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating the same thing. If 
you think the House is the House and the Senate is the Senate, and the 
House over there, they have it under control and forced the Republicans 
into doing something--I have never known the Republican leader in the 
House, Bob Michel, to be led into anything--let alone Newt Gingrich. If 
you forced Newt Gingrich to stand up in front of the press over there 
and agree with the Democrats when he does not want to, that is not the 
Congressman from Georgia I know.
  So when they agreed to it, and come publicly with it, that tells me 
that this is on the right track. The majority leader's amendment, the 
majority leader's suggestion, is on the right track.
  You can say this is the Senate and that is the House. But I still go 
back to the fact when the Congressman from Georgia, Congressman 
Gingrich, stands up and says something, that he was forced to do it 
just does not wash with this Senator. And I do not believe it washes 
with those on the other side.
  So it is getting down to a point where everybody, basically, is 
beginning to agree we are on the right track. We are agreeing with the 
special counsel. We vote and vote and vote, and delay and delay and 
delay. After 8 months of hard labor, it is tough to stand here and see 
this happen on a piece of legislation that helps all of the Senators, 
helps all the States.
  Do you want to know something? The bill that they are delaying is a 
jobs bill. It is a jobs bill because every airport that is built, every 
runway that is expanded, everything that is done creates jobs for our 
people back home. But we have stopped it for days and days and days, 
and it appears they are going to continue to do that. Every day we miss 
on the construction season is a job lost back home. Keep on losing jobs 
for American people, but standing up here and filibustering by 
amendment. You just say to the American people that we do not want you 
to have jobs; we do not want you to get your airport fixed.
  After 8 months of hard work and putting it all together and getting 
basic agreement, you are getting ready to pass it with two or three 
amendments and then, bam, all of a sudden you get these amendments day 
after day after day. And that money put there by the taxpayers to help 
the airways and improve the economic conditions--the best economic 
development tool you have in a community is an airport, for those blue 
chippers to fly in there and not have to be driven for an hour or 2 to 
see your industrial site.
  So, Mr. President, I hope sometime soon the shackles can be taken off 
of this piece of legislation by those who are trying to not vote on 
what they have asked for; not vote on what they have asked for all 
these weeks.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Simon]. The junior Senator from Kentucky 
has 3 minutes and 50 seconds.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the resolution we passed, I believe it 
was by 98 to nothing, back on March 17 of this year, indicated that the 
procedure, in terms of matters allowed to be inquired into, would 
involve--and this is a direct quote from the resolution of March 17, 
1994--``hearings on all matters.'' So the proposal of the majority 
leader at this juncture is a step back, as I understand it, from the 
March 17, 1994, 98-to-0 resolution which authorized hearings on all 
matters to limit that to three: Vince Foster's suicide, White House 
handling of Foster documents, and White House-RTC contacts regarding 
Madison Guaranty.

  So what we have had here, Mr. President, is a further narrowing of an 
original 98-0 Senate vote which anticipated hearings on all matters--
all matters.
  Let me just say further, it seems to me it would be without 
precedent--maybe it has happened some time in the history of the 
Senate--it seems to me it would be without precedent for a hearing to 
be proceeding and for a Senator to ask a follow-up question and for the 
gavel to come down somewhere, ``Oh, you can't answer that,'' and the 
chairman sits there and reads some prescribed parameters that seem to 
prevent a logical inquiry into a new fact that arose during the 
hearing. That is what the underlying amendment is about.
  It is simply making the point that if everybody is sitting there 
listening to the witness and he brings up some new area, that 
regardless of what the original prescription for the hearing was, like 
on every other hearing conducted around here on every other subject 
since time began, the Senator would be free to ask and the witness 
would be free to answer any question on any new area that might arise 
during the course of the hearing.
  To do anything other than that, Mr. President, I would argue can only 
be called a whitewash. Why do we want to have a scandal here in the 
Senate? I do not even know if the administration has one. There has 
been a lot of talk about Whitewater. I personally have no preconceived 
notions about it at all. I assume the President is not going to put it 
on his resume when he runs in 1996. Beyond that, we do not know if this 
is a scandal or not. We cannot even ask any questions.
  There were 25 investigations during the Reagan-Bush period into every 
conceivable newspaper allegations of impropriety, and here we have what 
appears to be at least a legitimate inquiry on the part of the Congress 
carrying out its oversight responsibility, and the majority wants to so 
restrict the inquiry that it can only be concluded by any reasonable 
person taking a look at the facts to be a whitewash.
  Why in the world the Senate would want to taint itself by restricting 
its inquiry in such a manner is beyond me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time of the Senator from Kentucky has expired.
  Mr. McCONNELL. So, Mr. President, I hope the second-degree amendment 
will not be approved and the underlying amendment will be. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip is recognized.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, it is always uncomfortable to be on the 
other side of my colleague. It does not bother me a whole lot, but it 
makes me uncomfortable. And when he uses terms that really are not 
comfortable for the institution, talking about fraud, a scandal here 
when we are just debating an issue, is part of the innuendoes we have 
been hearing now for several days.
  We talked about and he referred to the March 17 resolution that was 
voted 98-0. There is one paragraph that I think is pretty 
straightforward:

       The hearings shall 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 all it is.
  What this amendment does is it is opened up to everything. Somebody 
said, ``Well, I went over and smoked at Lizard Lounge with John Jones 
and he told me so and so.'' Well, that leads into something else.
  I just think this is too broad. But my colleague said that the 
resolution said that it shall look into all matters, include hearings 
on all matters. That was a good statement. He forgot to say, ``related 
to.''
  That is what happens after you have been in politics for a while. 
They take your statements out of context, and he just did not finish 
the sentence. All hearings, but he forgot to say ``related to.'' That 
is in the resolution, that 98 of us voted for; 98 to zip--98 to zip.
  So, Mr. President, sure, that is what it said, but you have to finish 
the sentence. You have to add those other two words to make it whole. 
What we had was a statement that was not quite completed: all items 
related to; including all matters relating to. And they set those out.
  There is an honest difference here, regardless of what you say, 
whether the Democrats will not let Republicans do it, Republicans are 
trying to get the Democrats, or we are trying to do this or we are 
trying to do that.
  One thing for sure, I have never heard a man more complimented than 
Robert B. Fiske, Jr. when he was appointed or selected than from the 
Republicans. And in 24 hours, they turned on him through this process 
on the Senate floor. That process we have seen today and yesterday and 
the day before of on and on and on.
  So I think it will be seen for what it is, regardless of the sound 
bites that might come out of here. The sound bites are always good, but 
we get tired of them. They may come back to haunt you.
  Congressman Udall made the statement--and I have to watch myself 
quite often; I get worked up about these things and I should not do 
it--but Congressman Udall said, ``Dear Lord, make my words soft and 
sweet for some day I might have to eat them.'' Therefore, I have to be 
very careful.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. FORD. I do not know that I ought to. I think I will just keep the 
time and try not to get into anything more.
  How much more time do I have, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 2 minutes and 52 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let me just encourage my colleagues on the 
other side--I see the distinguished ranking member of the Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation Committee who has worked very hard on 
airport improvement in his State, particularly in the city of St. 
Louis. We included a whole bill in this particular piece of 
legislation, and I hope some others believe we worked very hard. We 
have the airport reform bill after that in case we made some mistakes, 
we can clean them up.
  Mr. President, this is a jobs bill that is being held up--the 
construction of new airports, the construction of new runways, the 
roads that lead in, the sewers, the lighting. All these things are 
important to communities.
  It is a jobs bill, and we are stopping a jobs bill and we are costing 
millions of dollars. Just look at the pages, at $480 a page that is 
being printed, that costs just to debate. I wonder how many dollars 
just in print for the legislative Record we have cost the taxpayers 
over eight consecutive votes. Now we are getting ready to have number 9 
and number 10, and we have voted on the same thing for days.
  So I implore my colleagues, let us get on with the business of the 
people here, and let us get this piece of legislation out. If we do not 
and it goes past July 1, everything ceases.
  We do not have any entitlements for the States. They stop. We do not 
have any funding for airports. We do not have any funding for various 
and sundry items. We do not help the trucking business. We do not help 
the airline industry. We do not do these things; we are just delaying.
  And so, Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment 1793.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested. 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 amendment No. 
1793, offered by the majority leader. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Chafee] is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 145 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--43

     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     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

       
     Chafee
       
  So the amendment (No. 1793) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 1792, as 
amended.
  The amendment (No. 1792), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been requested?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been requested.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I request 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 occurs on amendment No. 1795 
offered by the majority leader.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Chafee] is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      {Rollcall Vote No. 146 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--43

     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     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

       
     Chafee
       
  So the amendment (No. 1795) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs now on the amendment No. 
1794, as amended.
  So the amendment (No. 1794), as amended, 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and 
Senator Durenberger to respond to discussion that occurred late last 
week on the Senate floor concerning a proposed new airport at 
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN.
  Our colleagues from North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska have 
recently expressed concerns that a new hub airport for the Minneapolis-
St. Paul area could have adverse impacts on the air service and air 
travel costs to their States. These Senators wrote to the Administrator 
of the Federal Aviation Administrator [FAA] and to Minnesota's 
Metropolitan Airports Commission [MAC] to convey their concerns.
  We would like to take this opportunity to assure all of our 
colleagues that neither MAC nor the State legislature has made the 
decision that a replacement hub airport is needed. The legislature 
established a dual-track planning process to investigate whether the 
existing hub airport should be expanded or whether construction of a 
replacement airport will be necessary. The legislature is not scheduled 
to make any decision on this matter until 1996 at the earliest.
  Before any recommendation is made to the legislature, there will be 
exhaustive efforts, including public hearings by MAC and other State 
agencies to consider all views on both of these options. Again, this 
process is a technical evaluative one and neither choice is 
preordained. The FAA will be undertaking its own environmental impact 
statement to assure that any State decision fulfills the requirement of 
the Federal environmental laws.
  MAC Chairman Richard Braun recently responded to the letter of our 
colleagues and indicated MAC's willingness to consider the views of all 
interested parties, within and outside Minnesota, on the potential 
impacts of any new replacement hub airport. Mr. President, I hope that 
in clarifying MAC's position in this matter, I can also reassure our 
colleagues that no new hub would be built without first considering the 
spokes.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, once again I would like to commend the 
leadership of my esteemed colleague from Kentucky, Senator Ford, 
chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Aviation. As you know, Mr. 
President, the Airport Improvement Program [AIP] is a valuable source 
of much needed funds for airport construction and maintenance. And when 
it looked as if other political issues might stall passage of this bill 
and obligation of these much needed funds, Senator Ford moved swiftly 
to develop and pass a 60-day extension bill. The bill allowed 
approximately half of the total fiscal year 1994 funds for the Airport 
Improvement Program to be obligated to states during the 60-days after 
the bill was signed. In Wisconsin, this extension was particularly 
important because our short summers only allow for a limited 
construction season. The longer AIP funds are delayed, the more narrow 
that window of opportunity becomes.
  Let there be no mistake, however, Mr. President, that the 60-day 
extension only released half of the funding, and many airports are 
still waiting for vital funding. Yet here I stand, speaking on behalf 
of quick consideration of the bill, while many of my colleagues are 
engaged in debate on an entirely unrelated issue. Mr. President, I am 
not commenting on the importance of the Whitewater issue. Some 
Wisconsinites and Americans are concerned about this issue, and they 
are asking that the facts be made clear. If my colleagues want to 
debate this issue on the Senate floor, let them. But I ask that they 
not do it at the expense of airports and air passengers.
  Therefore, I join the majority leader in asking that the Whitewater 
issue be resolved--one way or the other. If it must be considered now, 
then let us vote on any proposals; otherwise, let us consider this 
issue after work on the Airport Improvement Program legislation is 
completed. Either way, let us do what is right for airports and air 
passengers across the country--let us release the Airport Improvement 
Program funds and get on with the business of improving the lives of 
Americans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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. The 
majority leader.


                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, as if in executive session, I ask 
unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to proceed to the 
nomination of Lauri Fitz-Pegado, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce 
and Director General of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service, Ex. 
Cal. 899, that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth] be 
recognized to offer a motion to recommit the nominee to the Committee 
on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, that there be 2 hours for debate 
on the motion to recommit, to be divided as follows; 1 hour controlled 
by the chairman of the Banking Committee and the chairman of the 
Commerce Committee, or their designees, and 1 hour under the control of 
the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth] or his designee, that 
following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on 
the motion to recommit without out any intervening action; that if the 
motion is not adopted, the Senate then vote on the nomination, without 
any intervening action or debate; that if confirmed the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table and the President be notified of the 
Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall 
not object but I need to make one additional inquiry before I can 
withdraw the reservation.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I withhold my request 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. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lautenberg). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I withdraw the reservation.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I renew my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I discussed with the distinguished 
Republican leader and the distinguished majority whip the best way to 
proceed with respect to the pending bill and the matter that we have 
been discussing today. I have concluded that it would be best to 
proceed as follows.
  The agreement just obtained provides me with the authority to proceed 
to the nomination of Lauri Fitz-Pegado at any time and it is my 
intention to proceed to that nomination at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow. That 
nomination will be the subject of debate for 2 hours and then, at 11:30 
a.m. tomorrow, the Senate will vote on a motion to recommit that 
nomination.
  Following that vote, the Senate will return to consideration of the 
airport improvement bill for the purpose of considering amendments 
which are unrelated to the Whitewater matter. There are several such 
amendments which Senators have indicated they intend to offer and 
Senator Ford will manage the bill at that time in an effort to complete 
action on all amendments pending to the bill which are not related to 
Whitewater. The understanding which the distinguished Republican leader 
and I have reached is that as those amendments are considered there 
will not be any Whitewater-related amendments.
  Senator Dole has requested the opportunity to meet with his 
colleagues for purposes of discussing how they deem it best to proceed, 
and of course as always I wish to accommodate him and during the day 
tomorrow there will be a Republican caucus for that purpose as we are 
considering the remaining amendments to the bill that are unrelated to 
Whitewater.
  During that time, following their caucus, Senator Dole will advise me 
of their intentions with respect to the Whitewater matter, and we will 
then proceed to complete action on the airport improvement bill either 
with or without further Whitewater-related amendments. That would 
depend upon the discussion that occurs tomorrow.

  As I have stated previously, we will remain in session this week 
until we complete action on this bill, however long that takes, and on 
the legislative appropriations bill, however long that takes. It is my 
hope and expectation that it will not take a great deal of time to 
consider and complete action on the legislative appropriations bill. Of 
course, I hope the same is true with respect to this bill, although as 
I said, that will depend upon the caucus of our Republican colleagues 
tomorrow.

                          ____________________