[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 76 (Thursday, June 16, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                SCHEDULE

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, pursuant to an order which is printed on 
the inside cover page of the Executive Calendar for today, the Senate 
will now debate for 2 hours the nomination of Lauri Fitz-Pegado to be 
Assistant Secretary of Commerce. At 11:30 this morning, the Senate will 
vote on a motion to recommit that nomination.
  Following that vote, the Senate will resume consideration of the 
airport improvements bill.
  I have previously stated earlier in the week on several occasions, 
and I repeat today, that the Senate will remain in session this week 
until we complete action on three matters:
  First, the nomination of Lauri Fitz-Pegado, which I now anticipate 
will be completed prior to noon today.
  Second, the airport improvements bill and all amendments thereto.
  Third, the legislative appropriations bill.
  I believe we can complete action on those measures this evening. 
However, if we have not completed action on those measures by this 
evening, we will remain in session late tonight, all day tomorrow and 
all day Saturday, if necessary, to complete action on those measures.
  Senators, therefore, should be aware, in making and adjusting their 
schedules, of the Senate actions in this regard.
  Let me repeat that so there can be no misunderstanding. We will 
remain in session until such time as we complete action on the three 
matters listed--the nomination of Lauri Fitz-Pegado, the airport 
improvements bill, and the legislative appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, I note the presence of the distinguished chairman of 
the Commerce Committee and the distinguished Senator from North 
Carolina here for the nomination.
  I, therefore, yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina is 
recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this particular nomination was referred, 
in the first instance, to the Banking Committee, on which the 
distinguished Senator from North Carolina is a member, and also to the 
Commerce Committee. I wanted to say just a word on behalf of the 
Committee of Commerce at this particular time, in that momentarily a 
hearing scheduled for the distinguished Special Trade Representative on 
the GATT agreement, Ambassador Mickey Kantor, will be coming up. We 
have all been waiting to fit into his particular schedule. I have to 
chair that hearing.
  This morning, the Senate is taking up the nomination of Lauri Fitz-
Pegado to serve as Director General of the United States and Foreign 
Commercial Service.
  Ms. Fitz-Pegado's nomination was submitted to the Senate on September 
22, 1993, and was jointly referred to the Commerce and Banking 
Committees. The Banking Committee held a hearing and reported the 
nomination on October 19, 1993, and the Commerce Committee held a 
hearing on February 10, 1994 and reported the nomination on May 17, 
1994.
  Ms. Fitz-Pegado received an M.A. from the Johns Hopkins School of 
Advanced International Studies, and graduated Phi Beta Kappa from 
Vassar College in 1977. From 1977 to 1982, she served as a foreign 
service officer and in other capacities with the USIA. Subsequent to 
that Government service, she worked in a public affairs capacity at 
Hill & Knowlton--formerly Gray & Co.
  It is that service at Hill & Knowlton which has generated some 
controversy, and about which I have asked the nominee some hard 
questions. As a member of the Hill & Knowlton team working for Citizens 
for a Free Kuwait. Ms. Fitz-Pegado helped to promote the story that 
Iraqi soldier had ripped countless babies from their incubators and 
thrown them on the cold floor to die. We now know that this 
organization was funded almost exclusively by the Kuwaiti Government.
  There have been varying discussions as to the accuracy of this 
report. Ms. Fitz-Pegado asserts that she had no reason to doubt the 
veracity of this story told to her by the daughter of the Kuwaiti 
Ambassador to the United States. However, there was no public 
disclosure that the witness sent by Hill & Knowlton to testify before 
the human rights caucus, chaired by Congressman Tom Lantos, was in fact 
the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States. Ms. Fitz-
Pegado has indicated that Chairman Lantos was aware of the witness' 
identity, and for safety reasons decided not to make disclosure of that 
information.
  Additionally, an issue has been raised as to whether Ms. Fitz-
Pegado's nomination presents a conflict of interest with respect to her 
husband's employment.
  The general counsels of the Department of Commerce and the Office of 
Government Ethics have both reviewed this matter and do not find the 
conflict arising from her husband's business activities. Under her 
ethics agreement, Ms. Fitz-Pegado has promised to take certain actions, 
including disqualifying herself from participation in certain decisions 
at the Department of Commerce, and to seek specific advance approval 
from ethics officials at the Department before participating in any 
matter if her husband should acquire a financial interest or become a 
consultant or employee of a specific entity.
  The U.S. Foreign Commercial Service is charged with promoting exports 
through his network of domestic and international offices. The Director 
General of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service supervises offices, 
manages trade fairs and exhibitions, trade missions, overseas trade 
seminars, and other promotional events. In addition, the U.S. and 
Foreign Commercial Service promotes U.S. products and services 
throughout the world and assists State and private sector organizations 
in finding export financing.
  The Director General of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service will 
play an important role in the implementation of the administration's 
priority in providing export assistance to small- and medium-sized 
businesses and in the creation of one-stop shopping, so to speak, which 
will combine the export services of a number of Government entities so 
as to provide more expeditious services to businesses.
  I have decided to support the nomination of Ms. Fitz-Pegado and 
encourage her to work aggressively to represent the United States well 
overseas. Though I have had some questions about the nominee, I believe 
that it is time that the Senate vote on the nomination and get in place 
a nominee to assist Secretary Brown and the administration in these 
important efforts.
  I am sorry, on behalf of our Commerce Committee, that it is a matter 
of ordering priorities this morning. This is a high priority, and that 
is why I am first here on the Fitz-Pegado nomination. We have another 
high priority in this hearing that we have members of the committee who 
have been waiting for the distinguished special trade representative 
which we have momentarily at the time here scheduled.
  So I thank the indulgence of my colleague from North Carolina. It 
will be his motion, as I understand, to recommit to the Banking 
Committee and not to Commerce. I take it, then, that it will be an 
issue with the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, members of 
the Banking Committee, of course, and all Senators to consider his 
particular position.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina 
[Mr. Hollings] yields the floor.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from North Carolina to make a motion 
to recommit.
  The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth].


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I move that the nomination of Lauri 
Fitz-Pegado be recommitted to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Affairs.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There will be 2 hours of debate on 
this motion.
  The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth].
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, the business before the Senate is the nomination of 
Lauri Fitz-Pegado to be Assistant Secretary and Director General of the 
U.S. Foreign and Commercial Service in the Department of Commerce. That 
nomination should be recommitted to the Banking Committee.
  Mr. President, Lauri Fitz-Pegado has coached perjured testimony 
before Congress. She has served as a lobbyist for the Communist 
Government in Angola. She worked for the murderous Duvalier regime in 
Haiti, a regime which has left us with the tragic legacy we are 
attempting to deal with today.
  Mr. President, this is just the tip of the iceberg. She has done much 
more. She has been a hired gun for disreputable foreign interests. She 
has deliberately attempted to mislead Senators about her past.
  In short, Lauri Fitz-Pegado has disqualified herself from service in 
the position to which she has been nominated.
  None of these facts and allegations were disclosed either to Chairman 
Don Riegle, or ranking Republican Alfonse D'Amato, or to the other 
members of the Banking Committee when her nomination was voted on 
there.
  I have since made the Banking Committee aware of these concerns, and 
Senator D'Amato has supported my call for the Fitz-Pegado nomination to 
be returned to the committee. Senator Riegle had agreed to confer with 
me on the matter. It is unfortunate that the Senate is considering this 
nomination before that process has taken place.
  Mr. President, the irony of this nomination is that it troubles most 
Members of the Senate, and yet at the same time most Members of the 
Senate don't want to touch it.
  Many of my Democrat colleagues privately tell me that they believe 
that Lauri Fitz-Pegado is an embarrassment. They are appalled by her 
past actions, particularly her role in the propaganda war leading up to 
Operation Desert Storm. Yet, they feel constrained by party loyalty to 
ignore all of that.
  My Republican colleagues also have no particular use for Lauri Fitz-
Pegado. But they, too, feel constrained. Some are afraid that exposing 
Lauri Fitz-Pegado will reflect badly on the Bush administration, on the 
Kuwaitis, or others. Some are uncomfortable with the liberal human 
rights groups and journalists who have also been questioning the Lauri 
Fitz-Pegado nomination.
  Well Mr. President, let me tell you that it has been a pleasure for 
me to work with honest liberals, people who have a sense of right and 
wrong, and who have the courage of their convictions. I may not agree 
with them on everything, or even most things. But it is refreshing to 
deal with people who profess a set of beliefs, and then don't 
immediately start explaining why they can't do what it is they say the 
believe.
  But, Mr. President, I'm not going to make any apologies for the 
truth. If the truth embarrasses anyone--regardless of party--there is 
nothing I can do about that. My working with liberal human rights 
groups and journalists ought to serve as an example of how honest 
people of different political views can agree to question disreputable 
nominees like Lauri Fitz-Pegado.
  Mr. President, I have no desire to needlessly damage the reputation 
of individuals or of Government agencies. There are elements of Lauri 
Fitz-Pegado's past which, if discussed on the Senate floor, might 
unintentionally harm those involved in legitimate national security 
operations.
  Also, a fuller disclosure at this time of her husband's role at the 
London office of at the Angolan State Oil Co.--the oil company owned by 
the Communist Government of Angola--and of the circumstances 
surrounding the theft of some $60 million there, might harm good people 
who were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time.
  The place to discuss those matters is in committee. If Members are 
interested in arriving at the truth, then they will vote for the motion 
to recommit this nominee to the Banking Committee. If they are puzzled 
by these references, then perhaps they don't know as much about Lauri 
Fitz-Pegado as they might think.
  So, Mr. President, today I will talk about only one of the reasons 
why her nomination should be returned to the Banking Committee for 
investigation. When the Senate is aware of this and other facts, it 
will know what many already know; America can do better than Lauri 
Fitz-Pegado. In fact, it could hardly do worse.
  A reason--which by itself should be sufficient to reject the 
nomination of Lauri Fitz-Pegado--was her role in orchestrating perjury 
before Congress and the U.N. Security Council as the representative of 
``Citizens for a Free Kuwait.''
  In 1990, after the Iraqi invasion of their country, the Kuwaiti 
Government in exile formed ``Citizens for a Free Kuwait.'' They hired 
the lobbying firm of Hill & Knowlton to attempt to influence public 
opinion in the United States toward entering the conflict. Lauri Fitz-
Pegado was in charge of the effort.
  Her strategy was to use alleged witnesses to atrocities to tell 
stories of human rights violations in occupied Kuwait. Using their 
testimony live and on video news releases, she orchestrated what has 
come to be known as ``the baby incubator fraud.''
  She first coached a 15-year-old Kuwait girl, identified only at the 
time as ``Nayira,'' to testify before Congress that she had seen Iraqi 
soldiers remove Kuwaiti babies from hospital respirators.
  Nayira claimed to be a Kuwati refugee who had been working as a 
volunteer in a Kuwaiti hospital throughout the first few weeks of the 
Iraqi occupation. She said that she had seen them take babies out of 
incubators, take the incubators, and then leave the babies ``on the 
cold floor to die.''
  Nayira's emotional testimony riveted human rights organizations, the 
news media, and the Nation. That incident was cited by six Members of 
the Senate as reason to go to war with Iraq.
  However, it was later discovered that the girl--who had only been 
identified as an escapee from occupied Kuwait--was in fact the daughter 
of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States. It also turned out that 
Lauri Fitz-Pegado had concealed Nayira's real identify.
  Apologists for Lauri Fitz-Pegado say that she did not hide Nayira's 
real identify, because she had told Congressman Tom Lantos who Nayira 
was. But what they do not tell you is that Congressman Lantos' 
Congressional Human Rights Foundation received rent-free office space 
from Lauri Fitz-Pegado's firm, Hill & Knowlton. Their telephones were 
answered by the Hill & Knowlton switchboard, and Citizens for a Free 
Kuwait made a $50,000 donation to the foundation after the invasion.
  Instead of apologizing for Lauri Fitz-Pegado, we should be 
investigating those ties.
  Since then, every reputable human rights organization and journalist 
has concluded that the baby incubator story was an outright 
fabrication. Terrible things were done by the Iraqis, but Nayira never 
saw what she said she saw.
  Recently, Mr. President, an article appeared in Roll Call magazine 
which challenged that assertion. Well Andrew Whitley of the Human 
Rights Watch agreed with my position on CBS television.
  Further, after that Roll Call article appeared last week, the 
international human rights group, Amnesty International responded. 
Amnesty International, which I believe not too many years ago won the 
Nobel Peace Prize--and which is generally not considered to be a tool 
of the radical right--said that article was a distortion of their 
position. Roll Call has not printed Amnesty International's letter.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of 
Amnesty International's rebuttal to the Roll Call article be printed in 
the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the rebuttal was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    Amnesty International USA,

                                      New York, NY, June 10, 1994.
     To The Editor,
     Roll Call: The Newspaper of Capitol Hill, Washington, DC.
       To The Editor: Re: ``Pennsylvania Avenue'' by Morton M. 
     Kondracke (Roll Call, Thursday June 9, 1994), Amnesty 
     International would like to once and for all clarify its 
     findings concerning the organizations December 1990 report, 
     Iraq/Kuwait: Human Rights Violations Since August 2, which 
     contained allegations cited by medical and other sources that 
     large number of babies had died after removal from incubators 
     by or on orders of Iraqis. Mr. Kondracke's statement that 
     ``Amnesty International now concedes that some babies did 
     die, but cannot say how many,'' is a distortion of the 
     organizations update following an investigative mission to 
     Kuwait in early 1991.
       After a two-week visit to Kuwait in early 1991, Amnesty 
     International issued an international news release on April 
     19, 1991, which among other issues updated the baby story. 
     Quoting from page 2 of that news release, Amnesty 
     International said, ``However, on the highly publicized issue 
     in the December report of the baby deaths, Amnesty 
     International said that although its team was shown alleged 
     mass graves of babies, it was not established how they had 
     died and the teams found no reliable evidence that Iraqi 
     forces had caused the deaths of babies by removing them or 
     ordering their removal from incubators.''
       The news release concludes on the last page, page 6, with 
     the following:
       ``Amnesty International said it rechecked its information 
     in early 1991 after doubt was cast on the credibility of its 
     reports of incubator deaths. Although the number of baby 
     deaths cited in the report was in question, testimony from 
     several sources appeared at the time to confirm that babies 
     had indeed died on a large scale. `However, once we were 
     actually in Kuwait and had visited hospitals and cemeteries 
     and spoken to doctors at work, we found that the story did 
     not stand up,' Amnesty International said. The organization 
     says it remains unclear how many babies died in Kuwait during 
     the occupation or how they died. Officials at Al-Rigga 
     cemetery, the main cemetery used for those killed by the 
     Iraqis, maintain that mass graves contain the bodies of about 
     120 babies buried during August and September. They insist 
     the deaths resulted from removal from incubators, but cite as 
     evidence only vague reports, allegedly from bereaved 
     families. `Although some medical sources in Kuwait, including 
     a Red Crescent doctor, were still claiming that babies has 
     died in this way, we found no hard evidence to support this. 
     Credible medical opinion in hospitals discounts the 
     allegations,' Amnesty International said.''
       We hope that this finally captures Amnesty International's 
     position on the ``Baby/Incubator'' allegations.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Roger Rathman,
                                           National Press Officer.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, even a study commissioned later by the 
Kuwaiti Government could not produce a shred of real evidence that the 
Ambassador's daughter had managed to do a few weeks of volunteer work 
in occupied Kuwait--in a hospital overrun by bloodthirsty Iraqis.
  Again, Fitz-Pegado apologists say otherwise. But tell them that you 
want Nayira to testify at a formal hearing, on the record, and under 
oath, and then find out how interested they really are in arriving at 
the truth.
  Mr. President, the perjured Nayira testimony was discovered by John 
McArthur of Harpers magazine, and later reported by the television news 
program 60 Minutes. Fitz-Pegado first maintained that she had believed 
the girl's story, and that she hadn't meant to deceive anyone.
  But, Hill & Knowlton later said that they did know about Nayira's 
family ties, but that Congress--in the person of Congressman Lantos--
wanted the fact withheld.
  They were blaming Congress for their part in the cover-up. What's 
more, they put on a repeat performance in front of the United Nations 
Security Council on November 27, 1990.
  In the testimony before Congress they claimed they couldn't fully 
identify who the witness was because they wanted to protect her family 
that was supposedly still trapped in Kuwait. In front of the United 
Nations, Lauri Fitz-Pegado abandoned that pretense, and instead 
employed witnesses who testified using false names and occupations.
  The most important of these phony witnesses was a man who called 
himself Dr. Is-ah Ibrahim. With Lauri Fitz-Pegado there in New York, he 
claimed to have personally buried 40 babies pulled from incubators by 
the Iraqis.
  Dr. Ibrahim told the Security Council that he was a surgeon. But 
after the war when the incubator scam was exposed as a total fraud, he 
admitted to being a dentist who never buried any babies.
  After the war, when the baby incubator fraud was exposed, the royal 
Kuwaiti Government hired the firm of Kroll & Associates to verify that 
what Nayira said she saw actually happened. The so-called Kroll report 
was severely criticized by human rights groups. But even that report--
paid for by the Kuwaitis--could not verify Nayira's story.
  Nonetheless, in an on-the-record interview with John MacArthur of 
Harpers magazine, Lauri Fitz-Pegado cited the Kroll report as 
vindication for her actions.
  Yet, how did Fitz-Pegado account for the discrepancies that even 
existed between what the Kroll report said, and what Nayira and Hill & 
Knowlton had earlier said? How did she account for the lies?
  When she was pressed to account for the lies, she said--and I quote--
``Oh come on John. Who gives a ------.''--and then she used a word that 
is so foul that I will not repeat it on the Senate floor.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert the full text of 
that interview in the Record at this time, as well as a copy of the 
comments that human rights group Middle East Watch made about the Kroll 
report.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Rick Macarthur's Telephone Interview With Laurie J. Fitz-Pegado of Hill 
             & Knowlton, June 26, 1992,  Harper's Magazine

       RM: Hello?
       Q: Yes, is this Rick Macarthur?
       RM: Yes, how you doing?
       Q: Fine, thank you. I wanted to get to you, um, and tell 
     you that I had read the transcript from your overseas, uh, 
     event. And that I really, um, have wanted to say something to 
     you for many months about your portrayal of this event. But I 
     think the last straw for me was your comment at the event 
     where the implication was somehow that I was not the account 
     supervisor on this account. I'd just like to be very clear 
     with you, Rick, I'm a senior vice president here. I've been 
     here for ten years. I am not an account executive, and nor 
     have I been for many, many, many years. I did supervise the 
     account, I did have control over the account. I happen to be 
     a black woman and I can't . . . I consider it rather sexist 
     and racist that you would imply that it was a caddish move on 
     the part of Hill and Knowlton(?) to put me on television. I 
     pick my responsibi-. . . (Laughs) . . . bilities very, very 
     seriously. And I am not a pawn that has been put out by Hill 
     and Knowlton to take the heat, uh, when indeed, I will take 
     complete and total responsibility and take much pride on 
     everything that Hill and Knowlton did on behalf of Citizens 
     for a Free Kuwait. I don't work in the kitchen, I am not a 
     clean-up woman. And I want to make very clear to you that 
     your comments to me are sexist and racist.
       RM: Okay.
       Q: All right? So I (Overlap) . . .
       RM: . . . but now . . .
       Q: . . . set the . . . set the record straight.
       RM: Okay, but now . . . now let's have a real conversation.
       Q: Well, that was a real conversation.
       RM: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Before you . . . before you 
     get upset or more upset, why don't we go off the record and 
     have a serious conversation. Do you want to have a serious 
     conversation about what happened?
       Q: It depends upon what you want to talk about.
       RM: Do you want to go off the record, or do you want to 
     stay on the record? What do you want to do?
       Q: I don't . . . I don't . . .
       RM: You tell me. I . . .
       Q: . . . I don't have very much to say to you.
       RM: . . .  everybody . . .  everybody . . . 
       Q: You talked to everybody, you've written your book, 
     you've made your speeches. So you are convinced that you know 
     what happened (Overlap) . . .
       RM: No, no, no, no, no. I need to know  . . . I need . . . 
     .
       Q: You have never bothered to call me.
       RM: There's some specific discrepancies that we need to 
     talk about and some internal politics that we need to talk 
     about which might be very helpful in straightening out the 
     record.
       Q: I'll be very happy to go on the record. John . . .  uh, 
     John. You have some questions for me? Ask 'em.
       RM: Yeah. You want to be on the record straight ahead? 
     Because I was gonna give you an opportunity to talk to me off 
     the record because I do feel that, uh, Gray and Company are 
     making you take the fall. I mean, why did they put you on 
     ``60 Minutes''?
       Q: No, this is not . . .  this is not Grey and Company, 
     this is Hill and Knowlton.
       RM: Have you seen the memo that I've got from Bob Gray to 
     the Kuwaitis?
       Q: Yes, yes.
       RM: The December 11th (Inaudible) memo?
       Q: Yes, I'm very much . . .  look, I ran the account. 
     There's nothing you have that I don't have.
       RM: Okay, okay, okay, all right. But you don't want to talk 
     about anything off the record, you want to just continue to 
     be the front person. I'm not saying . . .
       Q: I'm not a front person, Rick.
       RM: I'm not saying it in an insulting way, but Bob Gray is 
     the reason . . .  Bob Gray is the reason Hill and Knowlton 
     had the account. And you and I know that.
       Q: What do you mean, he's the reason?
       RM: (Laughs). Why do you think the Kuwaitis go to Hill and 
     Knowlton? They don't go to Hill and Knowlton because of you 
     or because of Tom Ross or because of anybody at Hill and 
     Knowlton. They go to . . .
       Q: They go to Hill and Knowlton because Hill and Knowlton 
     (Overlap) . . .
       RM: They go to Hill and Knowlton because of Bob Gray.
       Q: Well . . . well, that's your opinion.
       RM: (Laughs). Okay. But let's . . . all right (Overlap) . . 
     .
       Q: Clients come to . . . clients come to Hill and Knowlton 
     because Hill and Knowlton does a good job.
       RM: I'll say you did a good job on this one.
       Q: There's a sta . . . there's a staff that's efficient.
       RM: Okay.
       Q: It's not because of one person.
       RM: Okay. Okay. But things are just gonna get worse and I . 
     . . and I, in the next . . . in the next couple of months, 
     and I just want to offer you the opportunity (Overlap) . . .
       Q: Well that's . . . that's . . . that's your . . . that's 
     your opinion.
       RM: I have the opportunity . . . I . . .
       Q: What would you like to ask me?
       RM: I . . . just for the record, I want to give you the 
     opportunity to think about talking to me off the record or 
     not for attribution or any time in the future . . .
       Q: I don't have any (Overlap) . . .
       RM: . . . about what . . . about what really happened?
       Q: No, I will talk to you on the record.
       RM: All right, okay, let's go, then. Why does Naira(?) say 
     babies and you guys in your press release say fifteen babies?
       Q: Ask Naira.
       RM: She won't talk to me.
       Q: Well, I . . .
       RM: I can't get her on the phone.
       Q: Well then . . . then that's your problem as a reporter 
     to (Overlap) . . .
       RM: So why did you . . . why did you put fifteen babies in 
     the . . . in the press . . .
       Q: Because that's what she said.
       RM: . . . not in the . . . not in the testimony, not in the 
     hearing.
       Q: It was in the written testimony.
       RM: But in the hearing she doesn't say fifteen babies.
       Q: That . . . that isn't a . . . Naira's problem, you have 
     to ask me Naira.
       RM: Okay. Why are you protecting Naira, I don't understand 
     it? Why are you protecting the Kuwaitis?
       Q: Why are you putting words in my mouth? Have I said 
     anything about protection?
       RM: It's what it sounds like to me.
       Q: I just answered your question. You asked me a question, 
     you answered it.
       RM: No, you didn't. You just said ask Naira, you didn't 
     say.
       Q: Because I . . . I am not in Naira's head.
       RM: You just simply followed . . .
       Q: I am not in her head.
       RM: You just followed a written . . .
       Q: I know . . . no, I know . . .
       RM: . . . you followed a written testimony without . . . 
     without regard to what is said in the hearing. That . . . 
     that's your policy.
       Q: No, no, no, don't say that.
       RM: Okay.
       Q: I did not say that. I said that is what Naira said. That 
     is what is in the written testimony. If Naira did not say 
     that at the hearing, then you ask her.
       RM: Okay, but as a policy, does Hill and Knowlton simply 
     disregard what people say at hearings?
       Q: What do you mean, disregard?
       RM: Why (Overlap) . . .
       Q: She deviated (Overlap) . . .
       RM: . . . did you go and ask her afterwards why did you not 
     mention the fifteen that you wrote in your written testimony?
       Q: She . . .
       RM: I mean, did anyone stop and say, ``Naira, what . . . 
     what do . . . why didn't you say fifteen babies in your 
     spoken testimony?''
       Q: She was extremely emotional, she did not read word for 
     word at that testimony. And no, no one asked her why she 
     didn't say fifteen, she said babies-a.
       RM: Okay.
       Q: That could mean one, two, five, ten, fifteen, and that 
     was really not the issue.
       RM: But you guys said fifteen in the press release.
       Q: Well, that is what . . . no, we guys didn't say 
     anything. We only said what Naira said.
       RM: She . . . she wrote . . . she didn't say fifteen . . . 
     she . . .
       Q: She wrote it (Overlap) . . .
       RM: . . . she wrote fifteen.
       Q: Well, then you ask her.
       RM: Well, okay. It'd be great if you'd help the Kuwaitis 
     let me talk to her. I mean (Overlap) . . .
       Q: Well, I can't . . . I don't control the Kuwaitis.
       RM: You must have influence with them.
       Q: I control Laurie Fitz-Bodato(?).
       RM: All right.
       Q: Okay?
       RM: Okay, number two. (Laughs). Uh, you've seen the 
     Kroll(?) Report, obviously.
       Q: Obviously
       RM: No . . . Naira says that she got a snapshot, a glance, 
     at a commotion in the distance, in which she thinks she saw 
     one baby on the floor. That doesn't sound like fifteen babies 
     torn from incubators.
       Q: Well, why are you asking me this, John?
       RM: Because you guys spread this story.
       Q: We spr . . . you know, your . . . (Laughs) your 
     terminology is just so offensive, it really is.
       RM: It was a press release, what is a press release?
       Q: Read the story.
       RM: What's a video news release, what does a public 
     relations firm do?
       Q: Well, a public relations firm . . .
       RM: It spreads stories.
       Q: No, public relations firms get information from people.
       RM: Yeah, yeah?
       Q: Okay? All right. So, we got that information from Naira.
       RM: Yeah?
       Q: Now, if you would like to ask Naira about anything that 
     has happened subsequently, I am not a mind reader. You ask 
     Naira.
       RM: I . . . I've been trying to ask Naira for a year and 
     they won't let me talk to her.
       Q: Well then . . . well then, that's your problem, isn't 
     it?
       RM: Yeah, but don't you see any . . . is there no 
     responsibility whatsoever on the part of a public relations 
     firm to get the facts straight before they spread them?
       Q: We had our . . . we had our facts straight when they 
     occurred.
       RM: But they're not . . . so they're not facts anymore. 
     They were facts at the time, and they're not facts anymore?
       Q: No, facts are facts.
       RM: And you still believe that fifteen . . . that she saw 
     fifteen babies removed from incubators?
       Q: I believe (Overlap) . . .
       RM: After seeing the Kroll Report?
       Q: I believe what Naira told me in 1990.
       RM: So you don't believe the Kroll Report
       Q: I did not say that, and do not put words in my mouth.
       RM: So what do you think of the Kroll Report?
       Q: I believe that the Kroll Report substantiates Hill and 
     Knowlton's presentation of materials.
       RM: Fifteen babies torn from incubators?
       Q: Oh, come on, John. Who gives a------whether there are 
     fifteen or two?
       RM: What?
       Q: It's the issue.
       RM: What? (Laughs).
       Q: It is the issue.
       RM: But . . .
       Q: Of the babies. You want to go around counting . . . the 
     fact that there were babies, whether it was one baby, two 
     babies, five babies or fifteen babies, the event happened.
       RM: The . . . the number doesn't matter, first of all. 
     We'll get into the event itself, but the number doesn't 
     matter, you're telling me.
       Q: I am telling you that if one baby died, it was too many.
       RM: Everybody's against babies dying.
       Q: If one (Overlap) . . .
       RM: And we know that babies dying . . .
       Q: And I am telling you . . .
       RM: But don't . . .
       Q: . . . that we were told in 1990 and had no reason to 
     question.
       RM: And now the Kroll Report corrects the record, you 
     think, or not?
       Q: I don't think anything about it. I know that the Kroll 
     Report has presented additional information. And if you want 
     to sit here and haggle over whether it was one baby or 
     fifteen and if that is so important to you, and that is the 
     only thing that you're focusing on . . .
       RM: No, no, it's not the only thing . . .
       Q: . . . you're not focusing on the issue.
       RM: We'll move on. We'll move on, we'll move on, we'll move 
     on.
       Q: You're focusing on the issue, but to me (Overlap) . . . 
       RM: We'll move on.
       Q: . . . the issue is that she said babies and she said 
     fifteen. Now (Overlap) . . . 
       RM: She didn't . . . she . . . 
       Q: . . . you . . . you talked . . . look, it's in the 
     testimony, John.
       RM: Yeah, I know, she . . . and you guys put it in the 
     press release.
       Q: And that is what I personally was told. I was told 
     fifteen.
       RM: I gotcha, I believe you.
       Q: Okay, so now you talk to Naira about whether it was 
     fifteen, two, six, five or twenty.
       RM: I think it's likely, Laurie, that the, uh . . . that 
     Naira lied to you and that so did the Kuwaitis.
       Q: Well, I do not believe (Overlap) . . . 
       RM: And I'm giving you the chance to . . . to . . . to 
     explain the . . . the discrepancy.
       Q: I . . . I am not going to explain the discrepancy. I 
     know what I was told in 1990. I know what was written, and 
     you will have to speak to the source of the information to 
     determine whether there has been any discrepancy.
       RM: All right, just . . . all right . . . 
       Q: I'm not going to answer that.
       RM: . . . all right, just for the record, does the Kroll 
     Report invalidate Naira's testimony?
       Q: Does . . . no, it doesn't. In my mind, it does not.
       RM: Even though it contradicts what she said.
       Q: Well, you say it contradicts what she said.
       RM: Don't you read . . . do you speak English?
       Q: I didn't say that.
       RM: I mean, my God, the . . . you see what the reports 
     says, don't you?
       Q: All that you're talking about is whether it was a baby, 
     babies, one or fifteen.
       RM: Fifteen babies is a lot more than . . . see . . . is a 
     very different story from seeing a baby on the floor from a 
     distance (Overlap) . . . 
       Q: And what did she say?
       RM: . . . in the middle of a commotion.
       Q: And she said there were other incubators in the room 
     (Overlap) . . . 
       RM: She had no proof, there's no corroborating evidence. 
     There are these two . . .
       Q: Oh John, please.
       RM: . . . there are these two nurses who get trumped up at 
     the last minute.
       Q: Please, John. You know, that . . . you really . . .
       RM: Now, let's get to the specifics. On the December 11th, 
     1990, uh, Bob Gray memo to everybody, the thought and action 
     U.S. Strategy paper . . .
       Q: Yes?
       RM: . . . why does Bob Gray refer to witness . . . 
     eyewitnesses in quotes?
       Q: Why does he refer to eyewitnesses in quotes?
       RM: Yeah. Because let me just read it to you again. This is 
     his, uh, recommendation, because he's obviously very worried 
     that there's gonna be a sort of a peace backlash in the 
     country, so he says, ``The people/human rights message must 
     be told over and over. Kuwait is `people' who still are 
     suffering under the boot of an oppressor. As U.S. diplomats 
     and hostages return home from Kuwait, this should be 
     underscurred (sic) . . . underscored further by 
     eyewitnesses.' '' Now, why would he put quotes around 
     eyewitnesses?
       Q: Because people had accounts out of Kuwait. Some of them 
     were first-hand, some of them were second-hand. We . . . we 
     were not in a position during the war to find . . . to go 
     into Kuwait ourselves to get primary source information about 
     what was happening. So if someone said that he or she was an 
     eyewitnesses, we had no way to determine whether that was 
     absolutely true, whether they were secondhand witnesses, or 
     not. So we put quotes . . . eyewitnesses in quotes, because 
     that is how they we . . . they were portrayed to us. This is 
     what they said, we had no way of confirming that. Just as you 
     had no way of confirming that when . . . when . . . when 
     Kuwait was occupied by the Iraqis. We did this . . . we 
     represented these people during an occupation.
       RM: But the people who came out of Kuwait were claiming to 
     be eyewitnesses.
       Q: Said that they were witnesses.
       RM: Okay.
       Q: Exactly. So that's why it's in quotes.
       RM: So the quotes does indicate skepticism on Gray's part.
       Q: No, it doesn't indicate skepticism. It . . . it 
     indicates exactitude. Being precise and being accurate.
       RM: But if . . . but when you put quotes around something, 
     it's indicating (Overlap) . . .
       Q: It's indicating that that's what . . .
       RM: . . . some question . . .
       Q: . . . no, it indicates that that's what . . .
       RM: . . . some question as to whether they're eyewitnesses 
     or not.
       Q: . . . no, well that's what . . . well, quotes also do . 
     . . also indicate a direct statement by someone. If someone 
     says that he or she is an eyewitness, then you would put it 
     in quotes. You're a writer, you know that.
       RM: Well, if you're quoting somebody. But it's not quoting 
     anybody, he's just making a general statement (Overlap) . . .
       Q: Well (Overlap) . . .
       RM: . . . about eyewitnesses in quotes.
       Q: . . . that depends upon how you want to interpret that, 
     Rick Macarthur. All right? It is in quotes because that is 
     what people said. They were eyewitnesses. We have no way to 
     corroborate that.
       RM: All right, so then as a . . . as a matter of practice, 
     does Hill and Knowlton repeat statements by people they don't 
     . . . uncorroborated, uh, testimony (Overlap) . . .
       Q: We corroborate (Overlap) . . .
       RM: . . . by eyewitnesses?
       Q: . . . to the extent that we can.
       RM: But . . .
       Q: Especially in a war time . . . or in an occupation time 
     situation. This account was not a normal account, Rick. This 
     was an account that took place while a country was being 
     occupied.
       RM: Yeah?
       Q: Okay? So you do the best you can.
       RM: Okay. But well, do you . . . do you feel that Naira's 
     testimony was, uh, was corroborated?
       Q: I have . . .
       RM: Before . . .?
       Q: Yes.
       RM: . . . before the Kroll Report?
       Q: Do I feel it was corroborated?
       RM: I'm saying back in the . . .
       Q: Yes . . .
       RM: . . . back in the fall.
       Q: Yes.
       RM: By whom? By whom?
       Q: By people who came out of Kuwait and said they had seen 
     the same thing. That is the best we could do. Was to not go 
     simply on what one fifteen-year-old child said, but also news 
     reports, there were news reports . . .
       RM: I know, I read 'em all.
       Q: Okay.
       RM: I read 'em all. They're in my book.
       Q: You have Amnesty International, you had reputable 
     organizations saying the same thing. Why would we have 
     questioned her? Why? Tell me why.
       RM: Because, uh, in the . . . in the name of, uh, truth, I 
     suppose.
       Q: Because . .  because . . . in the name of the truth?
       RM: Trying to figure out the truth.
       Q: Oh, so you just assume people are guilty until proven in 
     . . . innocent?
       RM: No, but I assume a certain amount of checking.
       Q: Okay, so (Overlap) . . .
       RM: I assume a certain amount of checking on the part of a 
     big, serious . . .
                                  ____



                                            Middle East Watch,

                                                    July 16, 1992.

                Preliminary Comments on Kroll's Reports

       In its attempt to vindicate the 15-year old daughter of the 
     Kuwaiti ambassador, the Kroll Associates report appears to 
     indict the Kuwaiti government as a whole and its public 
     relations campaign handlers in the United States. The report 
     says that it could not find evidence to support the widely 
     circulated reports given by official Kuwaiti spokesmen of 
     large scale raids on hospitals by Iraqi troops who pulled 
     babies out of incubators causing the death of scores or 
     hundred babies. However, it claims to have found evidence to 
     support a version given by Nayirah, the ambassador's 
     daughter. Even in her version, Kroll says her published 
     testimony was embellished and misunderstood.
       In the fall of 1990 and in the early months of 1991, 
     Kuwaiti government spokesmen; Dr. Ali al-Huwall, Dr. Ahmed 
     Abdel-Aziz al-Hajeri, Dr. Ibrahim Bahbahani reported that 
     Iraqi troops had gone into a number of Kuwaiti hospitals and 
     pulled babies out of incubators causing scores of babies to 
     die. In one testimony, another Kuwaiti official spokesman, 
     Dr. Abdel-Rahman al-Sumait, said that 312 babies died in this 
     way. Their accounts centered around the Maternity Hospital, a 
     500-bed specialized hospital that is part of al-Sabah Medical 
     Complex, where they claimed the Iraqi troops pulled babies 
     out of incubators and shipped the incubators away.
       Kroll did not find evidence to support these reports. The 
     firm incredibly asserts that it was not able to locate Dr. 
     Abdel-Rahman al-Sumait, the author of the most outrageous 
     claim.
       In its general conclusion, the report said that the firm 
     was able to confirm that ``seven babies died directly because 
     of the looting of incubators and ventilators from pediatric 
     wards at Al-Jahra and Al-Adan hospitals,'' (page 8). But in 
     arriving at this figure Kroll had to change the issue to be 
     investigated; the charge had been that Iraqi troops had 
     pulled babies out of incubators causing them to die. But only 
     one of the seven reported by Kroll fit this category. The 
     other six, according to the report itself, died because of 
     lack of equipment or because of a decision by an Iraqi doctor 
     to move incubators from one ward to another, in an attempt to 
     consolidate civilian wings. Similar incidents had been 
     reported before by Middle East Watch and other human rights 
     organizations. While we have held Iraqi authorities 
     responsible for such actions, these actions may not be 
     reasonably considered the same as pulling babies out of 
     incubators, which is tantamount to murder.
       The claim that one baby reported by Kroll to have died in 
     August 1990 as a result of being taking out of an incubators 
     is based on the testimony of Salwa Ali Ahmad, a nurse who 
     said that she had witnessed the incident. However, this 
     nurse's testimony as reported by Kroll is contradicted by 
     other more reliable witnesses at the hospital. In some key 
     aspects, her testimony as reported by Kroll is also at 
     variance with testimony she herself had given before, 
     including in a published report by Reuter from Kuwait earlier 
     this year.
       We recently re-interviewed a number of al-Addan Hospital's 
     staff. They again denied that the incident as described could 
     have happened at al-Addan. They questioned the nurse's 
     contention that she could not report it to the hospital 
     administration or note it in the records. They said that 
     despite Iraqi interference, hospital administration remained 
     largely in Kuwaiti hands and that the hospital staff reported 
     everything that happened in the hospital. The fact that she 
     waited all this time to come forward with this report cast 
     serious doubt about her recollection, they said. As for not 
     being able to note such developments in the records for fear 
     of Iraqi retribution, they pointed out that the hospital 
     records from the period contained information more damaging 
     to the Iraqis than what she claimed to have witnessed, 
     including reports of execution and torture by Iraqi troops. 
     Indeed, it was her duty to both report the incident and to 
     note it in the records. One doctor further noted that 
     assuming the incident took place, the baby could have been 
     saved by putting him or her in one of the incubators the 
     Iraqis left behind since she is quoted by Kroll as saying 
     that there were vacant incubators that the Iraqis left 
     behind. Kroll report actually claims that the Iraqis, after 
     allegedly throwing the babies out of the incubators, then 
     either left the incubators in other parts of the hospital or 
     left them on the street. (In fact, according to our sources, 
     it was the hospital staff who hid the incubators inside the 
     hospital.)
       One hospital administrator who recalled Salwa as working in 
     the Casualty Department (the Emergency room at the hospital) 
     said that the nurse might have been confusing another 
     incident with incubator death. He said that one day the 
     hospital needed to send an ambulance equipped with a 
     ventilator to transport a newly born baby who was in critical 
     condition from al-Ahmadi Hospital to al-Addan to receive more 
     specialized care. This administrator told Middle East Watch 
     that when dispatchers were not able to find an available 
     ventilator to send with the ambulance, they sent it without 
     one but when the baby arrived at al-Addan they could not save 
     it.
       Kuwaiti health workers have reported to MEW that tremendous 
     pressure has been put on them to testify in support of the 
     incubator death allegations. A number of them reported that 
     they were severely reprimanded for denying to reporters and 
     human rights organizations any knowledge of the incubator 
     deaths. Some were pressured to recant.
       Several doctors quoted by Kroll as claiming knowledge of 
     the incubators story had previously flatly denied the story 
     when they were interviewed by Middle East Watch, Physicians 
     for Human Rights and others, immediately following the 
     liberation of Kuwait.
       One doctor quoted by Kroll as saying that she had been 
     aware of theft of incubators from al-Addan has obviously 
     changed her testimony. We have her on tape saying, 
     ``Incubators from our hospital they didn't took. Why? 
     Because we hide them in the basement. We didn't keep the 
     babies. It's finished. We have no chance to keep the 
     babies in special care bedrooms or intensive care at that 
     time because we are short of modern instruments Like C-
     scan and ultra sound and medication.''
       The section of the report related to Nayirah's testimony in 
     fact confirms doubts about her credibility and raises 
     questions about the possibility that someone deliberately 
     ``doctored'' her testimony. For example, Kroll's report now 
     says that Nayirah never volunteered at al-Addan, that she was 
     there for only ``moments.'' In her testimony before Congress 
     she said ``The second week after invasion, I volunteered at 
     the al-Addan Hospital with 12 other women who wanted to help 
     as well. I was the youngest volunteer. The other women were 
     from 20 to 30 years old.'' Kroll now says that she 
     volunteered at a different institution and that she decided 
     to go to al-Addan for a visit, and that during the 
     ``moments'' she was there she witnessed the incident that she 
     reported to the Congressional Human Rights Caucus.
       Kroll's report says that Nayirah only saw one baby and 
     assumed that there would be more. Kroll is adamant though 
     that Nayirah never said anything about fifteen babies. 
     However, in Nayirah's testimony as distributed by the Kuwaiti 
     government, she is quoted as mentioning fifteen, raising the 
     possibility that someone connected with the Kuwaiti 
     government public relations campaign added that figure, if in 
     fact Nayirah did not mean to say that there was more than one 
     baby. Nayirah's testimony and the nurse's are also at odds. 
     Nayirah talks about a baby on the cold floor but the nurse 
     said that the baby was on a table. Kroll says that Nayirah 
     was in the hospital for ``moments'', indicating that she 
     could not have witnessed the death which according to the 
     nurse took place half an hour after the incident that Nayirah 
     claimed to have witnessed.
       An al-Addan Hospital administrator pointed out to MEW that 
     it takes more than ``moments'' just to walk from the 
     hospital's entrance to the maternity ward and to the rooms 
     where incubators are kept. He wandered why someone wanting to 
     volunteer could have gotten to the maternity ward in moments 
     without being processed or given instructions in other 
     departments. He also pointed out that the areas for the 
     volunteers were normally in the Casualty Wards and geriatric 
     care or in general cleaning of the hospital and in food 
     services. Very few would go to the maternity ward but 
     certainly not on their first day.
                                                   Aziz Abu-Hamad,
                                                Senior Researcher.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, as a supporter of our country's 
involvement in the Gulf war, I am offended that Lauri Fitz-Pegado 
believes that those kinds of illegal and unethical activities were 
necessary to get this country to face the threat of Saddam Hussein.
  I believe that if the other members of the Banking Committee, 
Democrat and Republican alike, had been aware of even this limited set 
of facts during the confirmation process, her nomination would have 
been rejected by that committee.
  Mr. President, Lauri Fitz-Pegado did not inform the Banking Committee 
of this baby incubator scam. I believe that if the other members of the 
Banking Committee--Democrat and Republican alike--had been aware of 
even this limited set of facts during the confirmation process, her 
nomination would have been rejected by that committee.
  So recently I made the suggestion that the nomination be returned to 
the Banking Committee where it could be scrutinized. The reaction of 
Lauri Fitz-Pegado to that suggestion has been telling.
  While maintaining that she has nothing to hide--that everything had 
been fully disclosed--she has at the same time mounted a furious 
lobbying campaign to try to stop an open hearing. Instead of documents 
being subpoenaed, witnesses being deposed, and honest media being 
present in an open hearing, she has tried to lobby her way to Senate 
confirmation.
  Believing that she can lobby the U.S. Senate in the same way that she 
has lobbied for Third World dictators, Lauri Fitz-Pegado even showed 
up--unanmounced and with a taxpayer financed Department of Commerce 
lobbyist--at my office 2 weeks ago.
  Finding that I was not in, she followed up with a letter claiming 
that she had made multiple attempts to schedule meetings with me--not 
true--and that now she would like a private closed-door meeting to 
lobby for my support.
  Mr. President, that precisely sums why America can do better than 
Lauri Fitz-Pegado. President Clinton said in his 1992 campaign that he 
was going to shut down the revolving door between lobbyists and 
Government. This is not the way to shut it down. Mr. President, with 
the likes of Lauri Fitz-Pegado, he has greased it.
  Mr. President, that is wrong. We need an open hearing, with members 
of the media present, and with witnesses under oath, before we even 
think of voting to confirm this woman.
  Lauri Fitz-Pegado deserves her day in court. I want her to have it, 
and that is all that I have asked for.
  She deserves the chance to explain her involvement with the Marxist 
Government of Angola. She deserves the chance to explain her ties to 
the bloody Duvalier regime in Haiti. She deserves the chance to explain 
her lobbying for the arms dealer, Adnan Khashogi. She deserves the 
chance to explain her role in the baby incubator scam.
  But Mr. President, the American people deserve to hear her 
explanations in the full light of day, on the record, and under oath--
not in clandestine sessions in which she tries to lobby her way from 
congressional office to congressional office, all the way to Senate 
confirmation.
  Lauri Fitz-Pegado is a professional image enhancer. She has spent her 
working life teaching people how to deny rather than explain; how to 
change the subject and then to counterattack. It works on a lot of 
people, a lot of the time.
  But Mr. President, the U.S. Senate should not except Lauri Fitz-
Pegado's image enhanced version of her past. It should demand 
independent investigation by professionals, and it should demand that 
witnesses appear under oath.
  If confirmed, Lauri Fitz-Pegado would have control over a global 
network of 200 trade offices in 70 countries. Mr. President, I have 
said that my opposition is not based on party or on ideology. It is 
based on the fact that there are few people in America who have less 
business being in charge of our Nation's trade secrets than Lauri Fitz-
Pegado.
  President Clinton promised in his 1992 campaign that he would have--
and I quote--``the most ethical administration in the history of the 
Republic.'' Yet, serious, serious ethical questions have been raised 
about Lauri Fitz-Pegado.
  Not one committee of the U.S. Senate has investigated those 
questions. I do not mean listening to her side of the story, or to mine 
for that matter. I mean investigated.
  Many serious questions have been raised about Lauri Fitz-Pegado in 
such media outlets as CBS, ABC, the New York Times, the Wall Street 
Journal, Business Week, U.S. News & World Report, and others. But not 
one witness has been deposed. Not one document has been subpoenaed.
  If the U.S. Senate takes its obligation to advise and consent 
seriously, it will return this nomination to the Banking Committee. If 
Lauri Fitz-Pegado and her apologists truly believe that there is 
nothing to hide, then she should welcome the chance to present the 
evidence that will clear her good name.
  But if serious allegations are raised about a nominee, and the U.S. 
Senate simply refuses to seriously investigate them, my colleagues 
should not wonder why politicians have come to be ranked below snake 
oil salesmen in public trust.
  I invite my colleagues to join me in this motion for open, on-the-
record, and under-oath hearings.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina 
yields the floor.
  One hour will be controlled by the Senator from North Carolina, and 1 
hour will be controlled jointly by the Senator from Michigan [Mr. 
Riegle] and the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings].
  Mr. RIEGLE addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan is 
recognized.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I rise in my capacity as chairman of the 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. As the Chair has just 
noted, we share jurisdiction on the handling of this nomination with 
the Senate Commerce Committee. I expect that at some point the chairman 
of that committee, Senator Hollings of South Carolina, will be here--I 
am told he already has been here to represent the position of that 
committee. So let me now address it from the point of view of the 
jurisdiction of the Banking Committee.
  I rise to oppose the motion to recommit the nomination of Lauri J. 
Fitz-Pegado to the Banking Committee. Just by way of background, she 
has been nominated to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce, and Director 
General of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service. Her nomination for 
this position was jointly referred to our Senate Banking Committee as 
well as to the Senate Commerce Committee pursuant to an agreement in 
which both committees shared jurisdiction over nominees to this 
position.
  We held our hearing on her nomination on October 4 of last year, and 
then we met on October 19 to report out her nomination at that time.
  There is a little history with this which I will cover, but when I 
put the question it was reported out without objection.
  But after that committee action was taken and before we finished for 
the day, Senator Faircloth, my good friend from North Carolina, came to 
the committee and announced that he would be opposing her nomination 
and asked that he be recorded against reporting her from the committee. 
So he was duly recorded and that is, of course, reflected in the 
committee record.
  Pursuant to our earlier agreement with the Commerce Committee, her 
nomination was then referred to the Commerce Committee after we had 
acted in the Banking Committee. The Commerce Committee then held a 
hearing on her nomination on February 10, 1994, and at that hearing in 
the Commerce Committee, opponents of her nomination did appear and did 
testify on the nomination itself. The Commerce Committee then later met 
on May 17 of this year and reported out her nomination on a voice vote. 
And in examining the record of that committee, I find that there were 
no Democratic or Republican votes recorded against her.
  I understand and have listened to the points made by the Senator from 
North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth] who has expressed his concerns about 
this nominee. As he knows and as I have said to him, I think those 
concerns should be fully presented, as they are being presented by him 
today.
  I have also said previously--and I do not know whether this would 
have been covered in his remarks, which I was not present to hear 
fully--that I had suggested as well that any questions he had for the 
nominee should be presented and answered for the record and, in fact, I 
had suggested, if it would be helpful to his sense of clearing up these 
matters, that I was prepared to invite her to come to my office and 
meet with him and with me so there would be an opportunity for any 
further face-to-face discussion or drawing out of these matters that he 
felt was necessary.
  I did not feel it was appropriate, nor do I feel it is appropriate, 
to recommit the nomination to the committee at this stage, particularly 
after we have had a situation where two committees have now already 
acted. So I think the appropriate place to deal with it, having had the 
nomination reported out favorably by both committees, is right here in 
the Senate, and that is, of course, what we are doing today: dealing 
with it on the Senate floor. D
  So I say, with due respect to my colleague from North Carolina, that 
I understand and acknowledge his rights and position in this matter. I 
fully understand the strength of his feeling and why he is proceeding 
as he is. We just have a difference of opinion as to whether or not a 
recommittal is the manner in which we should resolve this question with 
respect to a judgment that every Senator is now called upon to make.
  I want to say as well with regard to the nominee's background, it is 
important that it be noted--and I will just run through her early 
training leading up to her professional work--that she graduated with a 
BA degree from Vassar College and then went on and earned a master's 
degree from Johns Hopkins Advanced International Studies. She served in 
the U.S. Information Agency in the beginning of her professional career 
and also has been active on the Council of Foreign Relations since 
1983.
  It is true that during her private-sector career, she represented 
foreign governments. During her hearing before the Senate Banking 
Committee, I specifically asked her whether she understood that she 
would never again--ever--be able to represent foreign governments if 
she were confirmed in this position. And she clearly stated that she 
understood that requirement and that she made the pledge that she was 
required to make she would abide by it. I think that issue has been 
addressed in that fashion.
  But I think beyond that, Members will have to evaluate the points 
that have been raised. There is an abundant committee record here. We 
had a number of questions posed for the record by colleagues on the 
Senate Banking Committee. They were all answered by Ms. Fitz-Pegado, 
and all those questions and answers are in the record and can be 
referred to by colleagues as they feel the need to do so.
  But this is a nomination that has received the strong endorsement and 
support of the President of the United States and the Secretary of 
Commerce. It has now been reviewed by two committees. There have been 
public hearings held in two committees. There were witnesses heard in 
opposition to the nominee in the Commerce Committee and, as I say, from 
reviewing the record in that committee, there were no votes recorded in 
opposition to her nomination. The only recorded vote in opposition 
within our committee is that of Senator Faircloth, who expressed his 
contrary view.
  I will just finally say to my colleague from North Carolina, who is 
on the floor, I have great respect for his prerogatives and his 
viewpoint on this issue. He is an extremely diligent member of the 
committee and follows these matters very closely, and he is certainly 
within his rights to raise these questions and to propose a recommittal 
motion.
  I happen to disagree with that approach here, respectfully, but I am 
strongly of the view that when Members have questions that are of great 
concern to them, they ought to raise them, they ought to get answers in 
an appropriate fashion. So I will always be supportive of making sure 
that Members have the information they feel they need in order to make 
a judgment. Then when judgment time comes, if people are going to 
disagree, as we often do around here, I understand that as well. That 
is the nature of the process, and that is part of why we have a 
democracy, so we can have these opinions sort of presented and, in the 
end, vote on these matters and resolve them and go on to the next 
questions that arise.
  So with that, I will yield the floor and reserve what time remains on 
our side at this time.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Moseley-Braun). The Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I agree with what my good friend, 
the Senator from Michigan, has said. He made only one mistake, and that 
is when he said Lauri Fitz-Pegado graduated from Vassar. She did, 
indeed, but she graduated Phi Beta Kappa. That should be in the Record.
  I also wanted to make it very clear that one of the people I most 
respect, as well as like and trust, in the 9 years that I have served 
in the Senate is a young woman named Ms. Sue Schwab, who was the 
Director of precisely this agency under President Bush and who worked 
for the Senator from Missouri, Senator Jack Danforth, who is on the 
floor. Sue Schwab could not be more in favor of Lauri Fitz-Pegado's 
nomination and, in fact, came to my office just on her own to urge what 
I was already feeling, and that is to support her.
  So, therefore, Madam President, with that and for many other reasons, 
I very strongly support the nomination of Lauri Fitz-Pegado to be 
Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Director General of the U.S. 
Foreign Commercial Service of the Department of Commerce, which is a 
mouthful of words, but a very, very important job.
  Let me speak to the essence. In my view, we are considering one of 
the best qualified--for any position--probably the best qualified for 
this position we have ever had, in terms of what she has already done, 
for a position in Government which is absolutely critical to my State 
and to this Nation's economy.
  Nine months ago when President Clinton nominated Ms. Fitz-Pegado, he 
chose a capable and committed person to assist U.S. exporters. It is 
always, frankly, reassuring when we see a nominee for a Government post 
of this importance who has actually had the experience, not betting 
that something might work out, but somebody who actually had the 
experience, who has the qualifications, who wants the job and has the 
motivation.
  She is one of these persons, and I urge my colleagues to vote to 
confirm Ms. Fitz-Pegado. As the previous chairman of the subcommittee 
that oversees U.S. and foreign commercial service, this Senator has 
paid very, very close attention to that position and to its work for 
the past 9 years, the mission and the work of one specific part, a 
small part but crucial part, of the Federal Government. And that 
mission is to promote U.S. exports to a network of 75 district, branch, 
and regional offices in this country and a current total of 134 posts 
in 69 countries throughout the world. Those countries account for 
approximately 94 percent of the world market for U.S. manufactured 
goods.
  What I am saying is, whoever runs this position is of enormous 
importance to exports, therefore to jobs, trade balance, et cetera, for 
this country.
  This network of U.S. and foreign commercial service plays a vital 
role in helping American businesses of all sizes to enter international 
markets, increase their sales in those markets and maintain American 
business' competitive edge in the international arena, something to 
which we are all sorely sensitive.
  The service that I hope she will head sponsors all kinds of 
activities to equip U.S. firms to sell in the world market. It manages 
trade fairs, exhibitions, and trade missions, for example.
  It works with chambers of commerce, with State governments, and with 
world trade groups and clubs in educating American firms on the best 
ways to open up the doors for them to get into foreign markets. It 
conducts an enormous, vast computer network to make the best and the 
most current market research and trade contact information available to 
U.S. businesses.
  The U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service has a special charge to focus 
its attention on small and medium-sized businesses--not IBM, not 
Boeing, but small- and medium-sized businesses--that are by definition 
the ones that have the most difficult time in penetrating foreign 
markets. So much do they have a difficult time that they have a preset 
mentality, many of them, Madam President, that they cannot export, that 
they would rather not try because of what they presume will be the 
impossibility, because they do not know that there is somebody in the 
Federal Government who is on their side and who can clear their way and 
make life better for them.
  Small- and medium-sized businesses need Ms. Fitz-Pegado's nomination 
to succeed. Exports from small businesses have increased in recent 
years, but we have a very long way to go to where they ought to be. A 
recent study indicates that about 3,760 large corporations still 
account for 71 percent of the value of total U.S. exports.
  All I am trying to say is medium and small businesses, we need your 
attention. They need Ms. Fitz-Pegado's help. The Foreign Commercial 
Service works at connecting small- and medium-sized businesses with the 
tools and with the financing, such as export credits, that so often are 
what stands between them and succeeding in the international 
marketplace.
  Madam President, exports as a fact equal job growth. Congress should 
take a keen interest in the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service. All 
100 of us should know what it does. I do not think that is the case. 
And also we should take that same interest in the nominee before us, 
who is poised to run it aggressively and energetically. I can say this 
based on firsthand experience in working with the office that assists 
businesses in my State--the office hopefully which she will preside 
over here in Washington.
  West Virginia, my State, which went out of double-digit unemployment 
figures, Madam President, about a month, 2 months ago, for the first 
time in 15 years--for the first time in 15 years we went down to 
single-digit unemployment. We are still way above 8 percent, way, way 
above the national average, but it was kind of a treat to actually be 
in single digits. Do we need exports? Do we need jobs? You better 
believe we do. That is why I am standing here. We are one of the most 
export-sensitive economies of any State in the country, by which I mean 
we export an enormous percentage of our gross State product, and we 
need all the help we can get to do more, to get more jobs. West 
Virginia firms export coal, chemicals, primary metals, wood, and other 
products. In one recent year, 18,000 jobs in West Virginia were 
dependent on exports. That is a tiny amount of jobs. It ought to be 
three or four times that.
  This is why I have put so much effort into pushing our Government 
programs like the Foreign Commercial Service, as has the Senator from 
Missouri [Mr. Danforth], to work even harder at helping small and 
medium-sized businesses in West Virginia and nationwide to break 
through the barriers that stand between our products and markets all 
across the world. We need a coordinated, focused, and targeted strategy 
to take full advantage of each and every opportunity that comes to us.
  I remember after Kuwait I called a large meeting with U.S. and 
Foreign Commercial Service Federal employees there, a large meeting, 
when American businesses were to go over and rebuild Kuwait, and it was 
like a $100 billion opportunity. I got a big room in a motel, a big 
ballroom, and there were people hanging from the ceilings; so many West 
Virginia businesses, small businesses, wanted to do that. But then 
nothing really ever came of it because there was not enough focus and 
intensity in helping them understand to whom they could go from their 
desire to export to the fact of the ability to export. That means 
leadership. That means Ms. Fitz-Pegado.
  Madam President, I went into all of this detail not to enthrall you 
this morning but simply to make it very clear that America needs a 
well-qualified, very seasoned person with the educational background 
and many years of experience that Lauri Fitz-Pegado has to oversee this 
very important part of our Government.
  Her career, as Senator Riegle has indicated, is very distinguished. 
Most recently, for 10 years she has worked as a public affairs 
strategist for United States and international interests. Some will 
criticize that. I say thank heavens for it. That work has involved 
meeting and negotiating with international officials and 
representatives all over the world for the past decade.
  Before her career in the private sector, she was a Foreign Service 
officer with the U.S. Information Agency serving in Mexico and the 
Dominican Republic for 3 years. She was born here in Washington. She 
went to public schools here in Washington and graduated Phi Beta Kappa 
from Vassar. She later received a master's degree in international 
affairs from Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, 
with a concentration in Latin American affairs and international 
economics. A wife and a mother, she has built an extraordinarily 
impressive career.
  So Ms. Fitz-Pegado offers 17 years of public and private experience 
in management, policy analysis, and business promotion. She has been 
involved in extensive negotiations with international public and 
private-sector officials. Her background in marketing and promotion 
gives her exactly the skills that we need.
  She pointed out in her testimony to the Commerce Committee that she 
feels as if she has been in training for this job all of her life, and 
I am totally in agreement with her on that.
  She is going to be energetic; she is going to be a tremendous leader 
for this very important branch of Government, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to reject the idea of revisiting this nomination, thereby 
shunting it aside and killing it, and to confirm Lauri Fitz-Pegado for 
a job she has earned, she deserves, and in which she will excel.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. DANFORTH. Madam President, I oppose the motion to resubmit this 
nomination.
  First, let me say that the comments the Senator from West Virginia 
made about the significance of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service 
are absolutely on point. This is a very important part of our 
Government, a very small part of our Government, comparatively 
speaking. I think there are only 1,000 or so people in the U.S. Foreign 
Commercial Service and they are scattered not only all over the United 
States but all over the world. But they do an important job of helping 
American businesses do business in international markets.
  As Senator Rockefeller pointed out, the predecessor of the would-be 
nominee at the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service is a woman named 
Susan Schwab. Susan Schwab came to work in my office in probably the 
early 1980's. She was at that time a legislative assistant, and her 
particular area in my office was international trade. It is a subject 
that I became interested in in the late 1970's, and she was just 
terrific as a legislative assistant, very, very knowledgeable on trade 
matters and very savvy about how trade policy worked its way out of 
Government. She did such a good job that she then became my legislative 
director. But President Bush nominated her and she was confirmed as the 
Director General of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service. So she 
went from supervising a group of about five or six people in my office 
to supervising this worldwide group of individuals.
  All of the feedback that I heard was that she did an outstanding job 
in that capacity as well. She called me, too. The position that Sue 
Schwab took was that Ms. Fitz-Pegado is qualified for this position and 
that she should be confirmed. So that is a very good recommendation as 
far as I am concerned.
  I respect very much the Senator from North Carolina. But the points 
that have been made against Ms. Fitz-Pegado have been considered, and 
they have been particularly considered in the Commerce Committee. As a 
matter of fact, concerning the No. 1 charge that has been made against 
her, which was the charge that the Kuwaiti commercial was fraudulent, 
her claim is, well, she did not know it to be fraudulent. She did not 
know that this was something that was, in fact, a message from the 
daughter of the Ambassador to the United States, and that it was 
apparently a made-up story. So in order to get to the bottom of that, 
we had a panel that appeared before the Commerce Committee on just this 
subject.
  Madam President, it is my judgment that the case against Ms. Fitz-
Pegado just simply has not been made. Therefore, I think that the 
burden of proof--which to me, and perhaps the rest of the accusers--has 
not been a burden which has been met.
  I just want to say one thing about this whole business of confirming 
Presidential nominees. I know that the argument could be made that, 
well, Ms. Fitz-Pegado is maybe not the person we would have appointed 
for this job, or we would have nominated for this job, or there could 
be somebody, or hundreds of people, thousands of people, who are better 
for this job. It is the view of this Senator that there are a lot of 
people who would be better for the job of President of the United 
States than President Clinton. That is not a surprise. I am a 
Republican. I did not vote for him.
  I mean, that to me is the nature of politics, that you have different 
views, and your person wins or your person loses. But I do believe that 
once a President is elected to office, that President should have a 
considerable amount of latitude as to who is nominated and who serves 
in the President's administration.
  So I believe that a very strong presumption should be extended to 
Presidential nominees. In fact, there have only been a handful of cases 
in the time that I have been in the Senate when I have ever voted 
against a Presidential nominee. Sometimes I have been holding my nose 
while I have been voting.
  It is not an ironclad position. There have been cases where, for one 
reason or another, I have felt compelled to vote against the nominee. 
But I believe that there should be a very, very strong presumption in 
favor of supporting the President of the United States. I also believe 
that when charges are made against an individual who is the nominee, we 
have to extend to that individual a presumption, and that there has to 
be a very heavy burden of proof to charges made against the individual.
  My own view is our process of dealing with Presidential nominations 
has become extreme, not really bearing on reality. I do not know of 
anybody in the world who is hired in the same way that Presidential 
nominees are hired. I do not know of anybody for any job who is put 
through quite the same meat grinder that we put people through.
  I mean for the most ordinary position; let us take, for example, a 
position that amounts to nothing, like a member of the Interstate 
Commerce Commission. There is a job that requires nothing. They do not 
do anything. It is just a shell of a position. Yet, when somebody is 
nominated for a Commissioner in the Interstate Commerce Commission, the 
FBI goes out and interviews maybe two or three dozen people in 
connection with that job. Nobody in the private sector does that--at 
least to my knowledge nobody does that. Nobody in the real world does 
that. But we are so concerned about getting to the bottom of things and 
not making mistakes, that we have this extremely elaborate way of 
picking Presidential nominees and confirming Presidential nominees.
  My own view is that we have gone overboard, that it is not realistic, 
and that people who become Presidential nominees really more or less 
take their lives in their hands. I mean people can have perfectly 
decent lives, and before you know it they are the subject of editorials 
in newspapers and front-page stories, and all kinds of charges being 
made against them.
  I have a special feeling that when a person is nominated by the 
President of the United States we should be careful. We, as a Senate, 
should be careful, and not scared about digging out all of the relevant 
facts; but careful about the individual who has been nominated for the 
job. Let us face it. The country is not going to come to a screeching 
halt if the wrong person, by chance, is the Director General of the 
U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service. I mean the country is too strong 
to be threatened by making a mistake for the U.S. and Foreign 
Commercial Service.
  I think the country is more likely to be hurt by the demoralization 
of a part of the Commerce Department, the demoralization of a very 
important part of our Government, this particular service, and by the 
personal toll that the process takes on those who are caught up in this 
protracted and, I think, unfortunate process that we have made of the 
system of confirmation.
  For all those reasons, Madam President, I will vote against the 
motion to recommit.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, 
and ask that the time consumed by the quorum be equally divided by both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, as I understand it, the pending business 
is the nomination?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DOLE. I yield myself whatever time I may need.
  Madam President, I support the motion to recommit offered by the 
distinguished junior Senator from North Carolina. It is a 
constitutional responsibility of the Senate to consider the President's 
nominations to senior executive branch positions. If information 
emerges about a particular nominee during the Senate's consideration, 
that information must be examined, not ignored for the sake of 
convenience or comfort.
  At the time of the hearing held on this nominee before the Banking 
Committee and the Commerce Committee, only a few of the facts were 
known concerning this nominee's suitability.
  But since then, Madam President, much more information has emerged 
about her lobbying activities for arms merchant Adnan Khashoggi, for 
Haiti's ``Baby Doc'' Duvalier, for the Marxist government of Angola, 
and information about the infamous baby incubator fraud after the Iraqi 
invasion of Kuwait. There are also new questions about her husband's 
involvement with the state-owned oil company of Angola and his current 
activities, which raise issues of conflict of interest for the nominee.
  I can imagine what would be going on out here if this nominee had 
been sent up here by a Republican President. It would never see the 
light of day with the Democratic majority.
  It is incumbent on this body, if we take seriously our responsibility 
to exercise our duty to advise and consent, first, to get the full 
story. I know we would have gotten the full story if this had been a 
Republican nominee with a Democratic majority in the Senate. If there 
is nothing to it, then the nominee has nothing to fear and will have 
had an opportunity to clear her name. But we will not know until we 
have had an opportunity to explore all of the facts.
  I might add that this is not a partisan issue. Members of the Senate 
on both sides of the aisle have expressed serious concern about the 
nominee's fitness. I support the efforts of Senator Faircloth and urge 
my colleagues to recommit this nomination to the Banking Committee for 
further examination.
  It seems to me that we are entitled to the facts. That is all the 
Senator from North Carolina wants. The facts may be that there is not a 
problem, but we do not know. Again, it is an instance of one-party 
control and how damaging it can be from time to time. We should send it 
back to the Banking Committee. We are going to have these very limited 
Whitewater hearings, apparently, some time this year or next year or 
next decade, whatever, and I hope this is not a forerunner of what we 
may expect in that investigation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] 
is recognized.

                          ____________________