[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 79 (Tuesday, June 21, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 AUTHORIZING OVERSIGHT HEARINGS BY THE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, 
                           AND URBAN AFFAIRS

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the hour 
of 9:30 a.m. having arrived, the Senate will now proceed to the 
consideration of Senate Resolution 229, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 229) authorizing oversight hearings 
     by the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Kansas, the Republican leader, or his designee is 
recognized to offer amendment numbered 1818.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I was under the impression that the 
amendment has been offered.


                           Amendment No. 1818

                   (Purpose: To propose a substitute)

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, if that is not the case, on behalf of the 
Republican leader, Senator Dole, and myself, I submit the following 
amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato], for Mr. Dole for 
     himself and Mr. D'Amato, proposes an amendment numbered 1818.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. SCOPE OF THE HEARINGS.

       The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 
     (referred to as the ``committee'') shall--
       (1) conduct an investigation into, and study of, all 
     matters that have a tendency to reveal the full facts about:
       (A) allegations of improper contacts or communications 
     between and among officials of the White House, the 
     Department of the Treasury, Resolution Trust Corporation, and 
     Office of Thrift Supervision;
       (B) the Park Service Police investigation into the death of 
     White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster;
       (C) the handling and disposition of documents in the office 
     of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster at and after the 
     time of his death; and
       (D) any other activity, circumstance, material or 
     transaction having a tendency to prove or disprove that any 
     official of the United States Government or any other person 
     acting either individually or in concert with others engaged 
     in any activity that was illegal, improper, unauthorized or 
     unethical in connection with any activity related to 
     Whitewater Development Corporation, Madison Guaranty Savings 
     and Loan Association, and Capital Management Services, Inc. 
     occurring on or after January 20, 1993; and
       (2)(A) make such findings of fact as are warranted and 
     appropriate;
       (B) make such recommendations, including recommendations 
     for new legislation and amendments to existing laws and any 
     administrative or other actions, as the committee may 
     determine to be necessary or desirable; and
       (C) fulfill the Constitutional oversight and informing 
     function of the Congress with respect to the matters 
     described in this section.

     The hearings authorized by this resolution shall begin on a 
     date determined by the Majority Leader, in consultation with 
     the Minority Leader, but no later than the earlier of July 
     22, 1994, or within 30 days after the conclusion of the first 
     phase of the independent counsel's investigation.

     SEC. 2. MEMBERSHIP, ORGANIZATION, AND JURISDICTION OF THE 
                   COMMITTEE FOR PURPOSES OF THE HEARINGS.

       (a)(1) For the sole purpose of conducting the investigation 
     and study authorized by this resolution, the committee shall 
     consist of--
       (A) the members of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs, who shall, in serving as members of the 
     committee, reflect the legislative and oversight interests of 
     other committees of the Senate with a jurisdictional interest 
     (if any) in the investigation and study authorized in 
     paragraph (1) of section 1 as provided in subparagraph (B);
       (B)(i) Senator Kerry and Senator Bond from the Committee on 
     Small Business;
       (ii) Senator Riegle and Senator Roth from the Committee on 
     Finance;
       (iii) Senator Shelby and Senator Domenici from the 
     Subcommittee on Public Lands, Parks, and Forests of the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources;
       (iv) Senator Moseley-Braun from the Committee on the 
     Judiciary; and
       (v) Senator Sasser and Senator Roth from the Permanent 
     Subcommittee on Investigations; and
       (C) the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
     or his designee, who shall serve for purposes of considering 
     matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary, but shall not serve as a voting member of the 
     committee.
       (2) For the purpose of paragraph 4 of rule XXV of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate, service of the ranking member 
     of the Committee on the Judiciary as a member of the 
     committee shall not be taken into account.
       (b) The jurisdiction of the committee shall encompass the 
     jurisdiction of the committees and subcommittees listed in 
     subsection (a)(1)(B), to the extent, if any, pertinent to the 
     investigation and study authorized by this resolution.
       (c) A majority of the members of the committee shall 
     constitute a quorum for reporting a matter or recommendation 
     to the Senate, except that the committee may fix a lesser 
     number as a quorum for the purpose of taking testimony before 
     the committee or for conducting the other business of the 
     committee as provided in paragraph 7 of rule XXV of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate.

     SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL STAFF AND ASSISTANCE FOR THE COMMITTEE.

       (a) The committee, through the chairman, may request and 
     use, with the prior consent of the chairman of any committee 
     or subcommittee listed in section 2(a)(1)(B), the services of 
     members of the staff of such committee or subcommittee.
       (b) To assist the committee in its investigation and study, 
     the chairman, after consultation with the ranking member and 
     the approval of the committee, shall appoint additional 
     committee staff. The level of compensation payable to any 
     such additional employee shall not be subject to any 
     limitation on compensation otherwise applicable to an 
     employee of the Senate.
       (c) To assist the committee in its investigation and study, 
     the Senate Legal Counsel and Deputy Senate Legal Counsel 
     shall work with and under the jurisdiction and authority of 
     the committee.
       (d) The Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate may 
     each designate one staff person to serve on the staff of the 
     committee to serve as their liaison to the committee.
       (e) The Comptroller General of the United States is 
     requested to provide from the General Accounting Office 
     whatever personnel, investigatory, material, or other 
     appropriate assistance may be required by the committee.

     SEC. 4. PUBLIC ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE.

       (a) Consistent with the rights of persons subject to 
     investigation and inquiry, the committee shall make every 
     effort to fulfill the right of the public and the Congress to 
     know the essential facts and implications of the activities 
     of officials of the United States Government with respect to 
     the matters covered by the investigation and study as 
     described in section 1.
       (b) In furtherance of the public's and Congress' right to 
     know, the committee--
       (1) shall hold, as the chairman (in consultation with the 
     ranking member) considers appropriate and in accordance with 
     paragraph 5(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate, open hearings subject to consultation and 
     coordination with the independent counsel appointed pursuant 
     to title 28, parts 600 and 603, of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations (referred to as the ``independent counsel'');
       (2) may make interim reports to the Senate as it considers 
     appropriate; and
       (3) shall, in order to accomplish the purposes set forth in 
     subsection (a), make a final comprehensive public report to 
     the Senate of the findings of fact and any recommendations 
     specified in paragraph (2) of section 1.

     SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMITTEE.

       (a) The committee shall do everything necessary and 
     appropriate under the laws and Constitution of the United 
     States to make the investigation and study specified in 
     section 1.
       (b) Except as provided in subsection (c), the committee is 
     authorized to exercise all of the powers and responsibilities 
     of a committee under rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate and section 705 of the Ethics in Government Act of 
     1978 (2 U.S.C. 288d), including the following:
       (1) To issue subpoenas or orders for the attendance of 
     witnesses or for the production of documentary or physical 
     evidence before the committee. A subpoena may be authorized 
     by the committee or by the chairman with the agreement of the 
     ranking member and may be issued by the chairman or any other 
     member designated by the chairman, and may be served by any 
     person designated by the chairman or the authorized member 
     anywhere within or without the borders of the United States 
     to the full extent permitted by law. The chairman of the 
     committee, or any other member thereof, is authorized to 
     administer oaths to any witnesses appearing before the 
     committee.
       (2) To employ and fix the compensation of such clerical, 
     investigatory, legal, technical, and other assistants as the 
     committee considers necessary or appropriate.
       (3) To sit and act at any time or place during sessions, 
     recesses, and adjournment periods of the Senate.
       (4) To hold hearings for taking testimony under oath or to 
     receive documentary or physical evidence relating to the 
     matters and questions it is authorized to investigate or 
     study.
       (5) To require by subpoena or order the attendance, as 
     witnesses before the committee or at depositions, of any 
     person who may have knowledge or information concerning any 
     of the matters the committee is authorized to investigate and 
     study.
       (6) To take depositions and other testimony under oath 
     anywhere within the United States or in any other country, to 
     issue orders by the chairman or any other member designated 
     by the chairman which require witnesses to answer written 
     interrogatories under oath, to make application for issuance 
     of letters rogatory, and to request, through appropriate 
     channels, other means of international assistance, as 
     appropriate.
       (7) To issue commissions and to notice depositions for 
     staff members to examine witnesses and to receive evidence 
     under oath administered by an individual authorized by local 
     law to administer oaths. The committee, acting through the 
     chairman, may authorize and issue, and may delegate to 
     designated staff members the power to authorize and issue, 
     commissions and deposition notices.
       (8) To require by subpoena or order--
       (A) any department, agency, entity, officer, or employee of 
     the United States Government,
       (B) any person or entity purporting to act under color or 
     authority of State or local law, or
       (C) any private person, firm, corporation, partnership, or 
     other organization,
     to produce for its consideration or for use as evidence in 
     the investigation or study of the committee any book, check, 
     canceled check, correspondence, communication, document, 
     financial record, paper, physical evidence, photograph, 
     record, recording, tape, or any other material relating to 
     any of the matters or questions such committee is authorized 
     to investigate and study which they or any of them may have 
     in their custody or under their control.
       (9) To make to the Senate any recommendations, including 
     recommendations for criminal or civil enforcement, which the 
     committee may consider appropriate with respect to--
       (A) the willful failure or refusal of any person to appear 
     before it, or at a deposition, or to answer interrogatories, 
     in obedience to a subpoena or order;
       (B) the willful failure or refusal of any person to answer 
     questions or give testimony during his appearance as a 
     witness before such committee, or at a deposition, or in 
     response to interrogatories; or
       (C) the willful failure or refusal of--
       (i) any officer or employee of the United States 
     Government,
       (ii) any person or entity purporting to act under color or 
     authority of State or local law, or
       (iii) any private person, partnership, firm, corporation, 
     or organization,

     to produce before the committee, or at a deposition, or at 
     any time or place designated by the committee, any book, 
     check, canceled check, correspondence, communication, 
     document, financial record, paper, physical evidence, 
     photograph, record, recording, tape, or any other material in 
     obedience to any subpoena or order.
       (10) To procure the temporary or intermittent services of 
     individual consultants, or organizations thereof, in the same 
     manner and under the same conditions as a standing committee 
     of the Senate may procure such services under section 202(i) 
     of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 
     72a(i)).
       (11) To use on a reimbursable basis, with the prior consent 
     of the Government department or agency concerned and the 
     Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate, the 
     services of personnel of such department or agency.
       (12) To have access through the agency of any members of 
     the committee, staff director, chief counsel, or any of its 
     investigatory assistants designated by the chairman, to any 
     data, evidence, information, report, analysis, document, or 
     paper--
       (A) which relates to any of the matters or questions which 
     the committee is authorized to investigate or study;
       (B) which is in the custody or under the control of any 
     department, agency, entity, officer, or employee of the 
     United States Government, including those which have--
       (i) the power under the laws of the United States to 
     investigate any alleged criminal activities or to prosecute 
     persons charged with crimes against the United States; or
       (ii) the authority to, or which in fact has, conducted 
     intelligence gathering or intelligence activities,

     without regard to the jurisdiction or authority of any other 
     Senate committee; and
       (C) which will aid the committee to prepare for or conduct 
     the investigation and study authorized and directed by this 
     resolution.
       (13) To report violations of any law to the appropriate 
     Federal, State, or local authorities.
       (14) To expend, to the extent the committee determines 
     necessary and appropriate, any moneys made available to such 
     committee by the Senate to make the investigation, study, and 
     reports authorized by this resolution.
       (c) The committee shall have no power under section 6005 of 
     title 18, United States Code for immunizing witnesses.
       (d)(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2), the 
     committee shall be governed by the rules of the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, except that the 
     committee may modify its rules for purposes of the 
     investigation and study conducted under this resolution. The 
     committee shall cause any such amendments to be published in 
     the Congressional Record.
       (2) The committee's rules shall be consistent with the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate and this resolution.

     SEC. 6. RELATION TO OTHER INVESTIGATIONS.

       In order to--
       (1) expedite the thorough conduct of the investigation and 
     study authorized by this resolution;
       (2) promote efficiency among all the various investigations 
     underway in all branches of the United States Government; and
       (3) engender a high degree of confidence on the part of the 
     public regarding the conduct of such hearing,
     the committee is encouraged--
       (A) to obtain relevant information concerning the status of 
     the independent counsel's investigation to assist in 
     establishing a hearing schedule for the committee;
       (B) to coordinate, to the extent practicable, its 
     activities with the investigation of the independent counsel;
       (C) to seek the full cooperation of all relevant 
     investigatory bodies; and
       (D) to seek access to all information which is acquired and 
     developed by such bodies.

     The Senate requests that the independent counsel make 
     available to the committee, as expeditiously as possible, all 
     documents and information which may assist the committee in 
     its investigation and study.

     SEC. 7. SALARIES AND EXPENSES.

       Such sums as are necessary shall be available from the 
     contingent fund of the Senate out of the Account for Expenses 
     for Inquiries and Investigations for payment of salaries and 
     other expenses of the committee under this resolution, which 
     shall include sums which shall be available for the 
     procurement of the services of individual consultants or 
     organizations thereof. Payment of expenses shall be disbursed 
     upon vouchers approved by the chairman of the committee, 
     except that vouchers shall not be required for the 
     disbursement of salaries paid at an annual rate.

     SEC. 8. REPORTS; TERMINATION.

       (a) The committee shall make the final public report to the 
     Senate required by section 4(b) as soon as practicable after 
     the conclusion of the investigation and study.
       (b) The final report of the committee may be accompanied by 
     whatever confidential annexes are necessary to protect 
     confidential information.
       (c) The authorities granted by this resolution shall 
     terminate 30 days after submission of the committee's final 
     report. All records, files, documents, and other materials in 
     the possession, custody, or control of the committee shall 
     remain under the control of the regularly constituted 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

     SEC. 9. COMMITTEE JURISDICTION AND RULE XXV.

       The jurisdiction of the committee is granted pursuant to 
     this resolution notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 
     of rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate relating to 
     the jurisdiction of the standing committees of the Senate.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, every person who has ever had the 
privilege to serve in the U.S. Congress has taken the same oath--a 
pledge to uphold our Constitution. The Constitution, with its system of 
checks and balances, places an obligation on the Congress to conduct 
meaningful oversight of the executive branch of Government.
  The distinguished majority leader and Senator Cohen, in a book titled 
``Men of Zeal,'' said it best when they explained that:

       * * * a central function of democracy is to allow a free 
     people to drag realities out into the sunlight and demand a 
     full accounting from those who are permitted to hold and 
     exercise power. Congress provides a forum for disclosing the 
     hidden aspects of governmental conduct.

  While the political party in power in the Congress and in the White 
House has changed many times in more than 200 years, the Congress' 
constitutional obligation to examine the conduct of the executive 
branch and to bring all the facts before the American people has never 
changed.
  Today, the Senate has a choice to make. Is the Senate going to 
authorize Whitewater oversight activities that are real--or just an 
illusion?
  The resolution proposed by the majority leader is a transparent 
effort to prevent full and fair congressional oversight of the 
Whitewater affair. The majority leader's amendment would authorize 
hearings on only three limited areas:
  First, the Park Police investigation into the death of White House 
Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster;
  Second, the way in which White House officials handled documents in 
the office of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster at the time of 
his death; and
  Third, communications between officials of the White House and the 
Department of the Treasury or the Resolution Trust Corporation relating 
to the Whitewater Development Corp. and the Madison Guaranty Savings & 
Loan Association.
  Not only does this resolution prevent the Banking Committee from 
fully examining potential misconduct by the Clinton administration 
related to Whitewater, but also fails to give the Banking Committee the 
essential tools necessary to conduct oversight activities. This 
resolution is so limited and so unfair that it would have been rejected 
out of hand by Senate Democrats if there were a Republican in the White 
House.
  The Mitchell resolution abandons a 200-year tradition of thorough and 
fair congressional oversight in favor of a new policy: See no evil; 
hear no evil; speak no evil.
  That is why the Republican leader, Senator Dole, and I have prepared 
a Republican alternative to the resolution proposed by Senator 
Mitchell.
  The Republican alternative is patterned after oversight resolutions 
that have passed the Senate time and time again. Our resolution would 
provide the Banking Committee with the same oversight powers that were 
provided to countless other oversight committees in the past.
  The Republican alternative is also consistent with the Whitewater 
resolution unanimously supported by the Senate on March 17. The 
resolution requires coordination of the Senate's Whitewater oversight 
activities with the independent counsel's investigation. It also 
requires that Whitewater hearings be scheduled after consultation and 
coordination with the independent counsel. These restrictions go 
further than any previous Senate oversight resolution in deference to 
an independent counsel investigation. Going any further would turn a 
strong and vigilant congressional watchdog into a lap dog of the 
independent counsel.

  The Republican alternative also focuses on the so-called Washington 
Phase of the independent counsel's investigation which is soon to be 
completed. But unlike the Mitchell resolution, which is narrowly 
limited to just three areas, the Dole-D'Amato resolution would permit 
full and fair congressional oversight by authorizing the Banking 
Committee to determine whether there was any illegal, improper, 
unauthorized, or unethical conduct by officials of the Clinton 
administration, or any other person, related to Madison Guaranty 
Savings & Loan Association, Whitewater Development Corp., and Capital 
Management Services, Inc., occurring on or after January 20, 1993.
  While some Democrats may claim that the Republican alternative 
resolution is simply a fishing expedition, I must remind my colleagues 
that the Senate has trolled these waters before--often times.
  For example, the Senate Iran-Contra Committee was given the authority 
to investigate and study of any activity, circumstance, material, or 
transaction having a tendency to provide or disprove that any person 
engaged in any illegal, improper, unauthorized, or unethical conduct in 
connection with the shipment of arms to Iran or the use of the proceeds 
from arms sales to provide assistance to the Nicaraguan rebels.
  The Senate Watergate Committee was specifically authorized to 
investigate--and I ask you to listen to the words carefully--any 
activities, materials, or transactions having a tendency to prove or 
disprove that persons engaged in any illegal or improper or unethical 
activities in connection with the Presidential election of 1972.
  During 12 years of Republican administrations the Congress kept the 
bright spotlight of congressional oversight on the White House 
searching far and wide for any sign of potential wrongdoing. Now that 
there is a Democrat in the White House, the Senate Democrats have 
apparently decided that it is time to turn the lights out.
  As the New York times observed in an editorial on June 17, efforts by 
Senate Democrats to restrict the scope of oversight hearings because 
the President is also a Democrat results in legitimate claims of a 
coverup. In fact, Senator Byrd, who was the majority leader during the 
Iran-Contra affair, said:

       It would seem to me if the President was of my own party, I 
     should think that in the final analysis I would want all the 
     facts, believing as I would, not having seen evidence to the 
     contrary, that he is not guilty of having violated the law. 
     But I would not want to shut off an investigation or do 
     anything to impede an investigation. The result of my action 
     then would be a hue and cry that there was a whitewash or 
     that the people did not get the facts or that I tried to 
     obstruct justice. I would want the complete facts, I would 
     want all the facts. [Cong. Rec. p. 280, Jan. 6 1987]

  These were the words of the distinguished former majority leader, the 
President pro tempore, and I think they are as correct today--and that 
is why there is a hue and cry that this is a whitewash. I refer to the 
former majority leader's own words and his own rationale. It was true 
then and it is true today.
  Mr. President, the American people expect Congress to fulfill its 
constitutional obligation to conduct full and fair oversight and get to 
the bottom of Whitewater. Regrettably, efforts by Senate Democrats to 
engage in a Whitewater bailout will leave the American people high and 
dry.
  Upholding our constitutional obligation to conduct comprehensive 
oversight has been a tradition in the U.S. Senate. Some of this 
institution's most shining moments resulted from our willingness to 
shine the light on the darker episodes in our Nation's history. It 
would be a tragedy if the Senate chose to cover up a stain on the White 
House caused by Whitewater with a whitewash of its own.
  Mr. President, I see the majority leader is not here at this time. I 
think he was going to take some time. If he is not, I see my 
distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold, I had come 
to the floor anticipating that the sequence would be that the majority 
leader would offer a resolution and that the Republican leader would 
offer a resolution. I had discussed a number of matters with the 
majority leader last week and had come to join my distinguished 
colleague from New York today to pursue that.
  But, as a matter of sequence, I am waiting for the majority leader's 
resolution, for his response to what Senator D'Amato has said.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if the clerk will withhold the call of 
the quorum, we are under a time agreement. I suggest it be charged 
equally to both sides.
  Mr. D'AMATO. It will be, as I understand it.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New 
York for offering my amendment. I want to indicate that it is a very 
important amendment.
  We talk a lot about cooperation around this place. Democrats need 
cooperation on this; they need cooperation on that. This is an example 
of what happens when the Republicans need cooperation. We get none. It 
may portend what may happen in the future.
  But I think when historians look back to June 1994, they will see one 
of those rare occasions in American political history when one branch 
of Government--the Congress--willingly gave up power to another 
branch--the executive. I think this is very significant.
  We can doll it up all we want, dance around it, make speeches, but 
there is no question about it, we just simply surrendered congressional 
authority to the executive branch by agreeing to limit the scope of 
Whitewater hearings to three narrow issues. We have taken the 
extraordinary step of giving an independent counsel, an unelected 
bureaucrat, the opportunity--in fact the right--to exercise the veto 
over our own oversight activities which, by the way, happen to be 
rooted in article I of the Constitution. No permission slip from Mr. 
Fiske, no hearings. It is just that simple. No bureaucratic signoff, no 
investigation by Congress. So much for oversight and so much for the 
separation of powers.
  Of course, Mr. President, Congress has rarely been so deferential, 
particularly when it comes to oversight. Did the House Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations get permission from Independent Counsel 
Whitney North Seymour before holding hearings on Michael Deaver in 
1986? Of course not.
  Did the House Judiciary Committee wait to get the go-ahead from 
Independent Counsel Alexia Morrison before investigating Assistant 
Attorney General Theodore Olson? Of course not.
  Did Lawrence Walsh's Iran-Contra investigation prevent the House and 
the Senate from going forward with hearings? The answer is obvious.
  Did Justice Department investigations into BCCI and BNL stop Congress 
from conducting its own concurrent investigation into these matters? 
Not a chance. Of course not.
  And what about Watergate, Mr. President? The efforts of Archibald Cox 
and Leon Jaworski certainly did not prevent Congress from conducting 
hearings broadcast live on national television and live on radio and 
covered for months and months.
  But now we have appointed a traffic cop. Mr. Fiske is Congress' 
traffic cop. If he flashes a red light on hearings, that is the end of 
it; we cannot have any hearings. We have to stop. If he gives us a 
green light, we can go maybe a little ways, but they have to be 
circumscribed by what will be a party-line vote here. It will be a 
stop-and-go process: Stop and go, stop and go.
  We want to cooperate with Mr. Fiske, and that is why he has had a 5-
month head start. That is why we have agreed not to grant immunity to 
any witness, because that was a major concern early on. So we thought 
we had taken care of that.
  But it all comes down to the fact that Congress and Mr. Fiske have 
very different roles. Whether we are Democrats or Republicans or 
Independent, you have a right to know and a right to make a judgment 
for yourself. And Congress has responsibilities under the Constitution, 
as well as five major pieces of legislation. We have oversight 
responsibility. Our mandate comes from the Constitution. We were 
elected by the American people, and we are going to take our case to 
the American people in the coming weeks and months and see if they 
think Congress has a right to know, and tell them to take a look at the 
record of the last 12 years and the statements of my colleagues on the 
other side during those 12 years and then make a judgment.
  But we were elected by the people. Mr. Fiske was appointed by the 
Attorney General who was appointed by President Clinton. Mr. Fiske's 
job is criminal prosecution. Our job is full public disclosure. And 
these jobs are not incompatible; they are just different.
  So we are going to take one more chance, one more offer of 
compromise, one more offer of cooperation, which you are going to hear 
a lot about in the next few weeks on the other side: ``Oh, we need your 
cooperation on this, on GATT, on health care, on crime.'' Well, if we 
give the same cooperation we have had on this issue, it will be a long, 
hot summer. And maybe it should be a long, hot summer.
  We cannot have it both ways. The majority party cannot say, ``Well, 
on this issue you get zippo, nothing, until we tell you; until Robert 
Fiske tells you, you get nothing. On everything else, if you do not 
cooperate, then you are guilty of gridlock.'' I think that is a hard 
sell.
  I hope that if we have a majority--which I think we will have next 
year--we will not comport ourselves in the same way. In fact, go back 
and look at the record when Republicans had control of the Senate. We 
conducted investigations of three Republican appointees.
  So I just suggest that I hope we do not have a double standard here. 
I do not want people out here next week or the next week or the next 
month saying, ``We need your cooperation. Why are you holding this 
up?'' I will go back and read all the speeches they made on Whitewater. 
Maybe Mr. Fiske can take over domestic policy, if he has any spare 
time.
  But let me talk about the compromise. Under the amendment, the forum 
for hearings is the Banking Committee, same as the Mitchell resolution.
  Subpoenas may be authorized by the committee or the chairman with 
agreement of the ranking member, same as the Mitchell resolution.
  No immunity may be granted to any witness, same as the Mitchell 
resolution.
  The Banking Committee is encouraged to coordinate with Robert Fiske, 
same as the Mitchell resolution.
  The committee is authorized to hold public hearings and make interim 
and final reports. Again, Mr. President, same as the Mitchell 
resolution.
  The amendment also borrows from the Iran-Contra experience, taking 
language word for word from the resolution established in the Iran-
Contra Select Committee.
  Like the Iran-Contra resolution, the amendment provides that the 
Banking Committee may have access to relevant evidence in custody of 
any Federal agency. It directs the Senate legal counsel and the General 
Accounting Office to assist the committee if their help is requested.
  And like the Iran-Contra resolution, it provides that Robert Fiske 
should make available to the committee all documents and information 
which may assist the committee in its own investigation.
  Much of the debate last week centered around the issue of scope. My 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle want very narrow hearings, 
limited to three narrow areas, a small piece of the entire Whitewater 
puzzle.
  Their proposal would prohibit us from examining the Justice 
Department handling of the RTC criminal referrals. It would prevent the 
Senate from taking a look at how Madison Guaranty was treated by S&L 
regulators. It would block hearings into the SBA loan that somehow 
found its way into the Whitewater partnership. It would say no to the 
hearings on the so-called commodities issue. It would prohibit us from 
asking the U.S. attorney in Little Rock why she delayed so long in 
recusing herself in the prosecution of David Hale. And if any Senator 
wants to examine the Whitewater partnership itself, that, too, would be 
off limits.
  So most everything is off limits. It is a very limited scope; very 
limited scope.
  So, Mr. President, do we really want full disclosure? Obviously, my 
colleagues on the other side do not want full--they do not want any 
disclosure. Are we really committed to oversight? Obviously not. Do we 
want to get the matter behind us? Obviously not. Maybe we have to wait 
until next year to have real hearings.
  I want to make reference to a New York Times editorial of June 17, 
1994, last week. This was the New York Times, not the National 
Republican Committee or Republican Senators. Let me quote what they 
have to say, because I think it will be quoted a lot, maybe in TV 
spots, later this year:

       Senate Democrats are rushing toward a partisan coverup--

  Coverup--that is their word. Somebody used the word on the Senate 
floor last week and we were castigated and chastised. So I will read 
what the New York Times said:

     a partisan coverup of the Whitewater affair. They have voted 
     to hold narrowly circumscribed hearings in the Senate Banking 
     Committee, which they dominate. They are therefore likely to 
     prolong the agony of the President they hope to protect.

  So I suggest that it is not just Republicans who have been saying 
that the scope is too limited. There is not any opportunity for 
hearings.
  We do not want to engage in a fishing expedition, as some of my 
Democrat colleagues have suggested. That is why we are prepared to 
narrow the scope of the hearings to cover only those activities that 
occurred during the Clinton administration on or after January 20, 
1993. If we are serious about having hearings on the subject covered by 
the so-called Washington phase of Fiske's investigation, then let us do 
so. But let us not limit hearings to bits and pieces proposed in the 
resolution offered by the distinguished majority leader. If we mean 
what we say, then let us look at the entire Washington component of 
Whitewater.
  So, Mr. President, as I have said, our amendment, with minor changes, 
adopts the resolution of the majority leader.
  It also adds a fourth area of inquiry allowing the Banking Committee 
to examine any other activity having a tendency to prove or disprove 
that any person engaged in illegal, unauthorized or unethical conduct 
relating to Whitewater, Madison Guaranty or Capital Management Services 
occurring--Mr. President, this is important--on or after January 20, 
1993. In other words, during the Clinton administration.
  It tracks the March 17 resolution which passed this body 98 to 0, and 
now we are backing away from that. It has been March to April, April to 
May, May to June. Three months, ninety days, we have been backtracked 
on the other side. We voted for that because there was a public outcry 
at the time. That subsided now so it is not important anymore. By 
directing the Banking Committee to examine any activity suggesting 
illegal unauthorized, or unethical conduct, it also adopts word-for-
word the scope of inquiry contained in the Iran-Contra resolution.

  So, Mr. President, Republicans are willing to be reasonable, 
following precedent, limiting the scope of the hearings to Washington 
matters occurring during the administration, allowing hearings to be 
held in the Banking Committee, accepting much of what the distinguished 
majority leader himself has proposed.
  So it just seems to me that we will be back. This will not be the 
last amendment offered on Whitewater. We know the outcome of this 
amendment. We may have another one this week. We may have several next 
week. We may have several after the July 4 recess because this is a 
fair compromise striking a fair balance and, in my view, it should pass 
with strong bipartisan support. But, of course, with only 44 votes on 
this side of the aisle, I have no illusions about the outcome later 
today.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would be remiss if I did not thank my 
distinguished colleague from New York, Senator D'Amato, for his 
leadership on Whitewater. It is not easy being the point man on an 
issue as controversial as this one, but I believe that Senator D'Amato 
has handled his responsibilities with diligence and with considerable 
skill. I think in the long run the American people, regardless of 
party, are going to owe Senator D'Amato and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] and others who kept this issue out in front, 
for public disclosure, a debt of gratitude.
  I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times editorial be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, June 17, 1994]

                    Running for Cover on Whitewater

       Senate Democrats are rushing toward a partisan cover-up of 
     the Whitewater affair. They have voted to hold narrowly 
     circumscribed hearings in the Senate Banking Committee, which 
     they dominate. They are therefore likely to prolong the agony 
     of the President they hope to protect.
       By a 56-to-43 vote, the Senate decided to limit hearings 
     next month to three elements of the case. One is the U.S. 
     Park Police's investigation into the death of Vincent Foster 
     Jr., the Deputy White House Counsel. Two, the way in which 
     members of the White House staff disposed of Mr. Foster's 
     Whitewater files. Three, whether White House officials tried 
     to manipulate Treasury Department investigations into Madison 
     Guaranty Savings and Loan.
       This agenda focuses only on White House behavior after Bill 
     Clinton became President and excludes far more important 
     questions about what happened in Arkansas before he and Mrs. 
     Clinton reached the White House.
       To recapitulate: Did James McDougal, a Clinton crony who 
     headed Madison, receive favorable treatment from a bank 
     regulator appointed by then-Gov. Bill Clinton? Were Madison 
     funds used to pay off Mr. Clinton's 1984 campaign debt? Were 
     funds in Madison accounts diverted to the Whitewater 
     Development Company? How much did the Clintons pay for their 
     half-share of Whitewater? Did they receive financial benefits 
     that they should have reported as taxable income?
       In short, the Democrats have chosen to ignore precisely 
     those dealings that have raised suspicions that the Clintons 
     may have profited from favors dispensed by people who had 
     something to gain from them. They have also shown no interest 
     in Mrs. Clinton's commodities trading, or the possibility 
     that an artful broker may have given her favorable treatment. 
     The special counsel investigating Whitewater, Robert Fiske, 
     has likewise shown little interest in this issue.
       The Democrats say their timid agenda results from a desire 
     not to undermine Mr. Fiske's inquiries. They also promise to 
     get to the Arkansas questions next year--safely after the 
     midterm elections. In March, this page argued against a 
     partisan circus and agreed that hearings should be delayed 
     until Mr. Fiske got his feet on the ground. But we also said 
     the delay should be measured in weeks, not months. Mr. Fiske 
     has now had time to learn the basics of the case, both in 
     Washington and Arkansas; it is hard to see how a broad 
     Congressional inquiry could seriously hinder him. It might 
     even help; past Congressional hearings have made the 
     prosecutor's case even stronger.
       We also noted that Mr. Fiske could not expect Congress to 
     abdicate its oversight responsibilities. The banking 
     committees have a legitimate interest in the behavior of 
     Federal bank regulators and the Arkansas bank regulators in 
     regard to Madison and its dubious lending practices.
       House Democrats are expected to follow the Senate's narrow 
     path. This path does not serve the public or the President. 
     It leaves unanswered questions that voters deserve to have 
     answered. It prolongs the uncertainty that has damaged this 
     Presidency from day one of the Whitewater affair and hands 
     the G.O.P. a new--and legitimate--cover-up issue.

  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, while the Republican leader is in the Chamber, if I 
may have his attention very briefly, the two resolutions really require 
analysis and debate if there is to be any presentation as to the 
differences between them.
  I had a discussion with the majority leader on June 15 and made some 
references specifically to the Office of Thrift Supervision. I asked 
him if he would include the OTS in his resolution if we produced the 
indicators of the relevancy to matters which were already within his 
resolution. We had a discussion also as to other agencies like the 
Justice Department or the FDIC.
  Now, I know that Senator Mitchell is busy. He was here earlier today. 
We do not have very much time to debate this resolution, but I intend 
to start to go into the facts.
  The Republican leader has made a comment about this resolution coming 
up again. If we are not able to really get down to brass tacks and have 
a discussion with Senator Mitchell as the offeror of the other 
resolution, I intend--I hope with the Republican leader's backing and 
the backing of my colleague, Senator D'Amato--to revisit this without a 
time agreement so that we can get down to the hard facts and the 
indicators about the necessity for the breadth of the investigation.
  When we are here in the Chamber--and there are three Republican 
Senators here: Senator Dole, Senator D'Amato, and myself--and nobody to 
defend it, it is like a sound Chamber; we can talk but who is 
listening. We can produce some very damaging evidence which really 
warrant broader investigation to which the distinguished majority 
leader really ought to respond.
  So I just make that prefatory statement because I hope we will 
revisit this long enough to bring out the facts and to have the kind of 
analysis which will show the American people, beyond those who read the 
lead editorial in the New York Times, which characterized it as a 
coverup, that the hard facts require a much broader charter than is in 
the Mitchell amendment, and require at least the charter which is in 
the Dole amendment.
  I proposed to discuss this morning, Mr. President, the five separate 
factors of hard indicators that the scope of the Mitchell resolution is 
totally insufficient. Those factors relate to the Justice Department, 
including the Attorney General directly, the FDIC, the Office of Thrift 
Supervision, the Hale issue, and the alleged suicide, the very sad 
situation regarding Mr. Foster.
  Now, the scope of the Mitchell amendment is extraordinarily narrow in 
three particulars. It does not have the customary introductory 
prefatory language which is always found in these matters and is found 
in the Dole amendment, which calls for an investigation into and study 
of all matters that have a tendency to reveal the full facts about this 
issue. All the Mitchell amendment says is conduct hearings into whether 
improper conduct occurred regarding this issue, and then the three 
items.
  Thus, on its face, you start off with a proposition that the Mitchell 
amendment does not have the customary clause to investigate all the 
matters relating to any specific item. Then, Senator Dole's amendment 
goes on to discuss, in subsection (D), relating to any ``other 
activity, circumstance, material or transaction having a tendency to 
prove or disprove that any official of the United States Government or 
any other person, acting either individually or in concert with others, 
engaged in any activity that was illegal, improper, unauthorized or 
unethical in connection with any activity related to Whitewater 
Development Corporation, Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association, 
and Capital Management Services occurring on or after January 20, 
1993.''
  Mr. President, that is an important day because what the Dole 
amendment calls for is an investigation by the Senate into matters 
which have been generally referred to as phase I. Phase I involves what 
happened while President Clinton has been in office, because it is in 
that scope that the President, as the chief executive officer, has the 
ultimate control over the Justice Department, the Treasury Department, 
OTS, FDIC, and the RTC. That is why it is important as to phase I--and 
we are not talking about going into everything in the past--that at 
least all matters involved after Mr. Clinton became President, would be 
subject to investigation by the Senate inquiry.
  Now, Mr. President, necessarily, that inquiry will relate to matters 
which occurred in the past. For example, the Mitchell amendment 
concedes that there will be inquiry and investigation into discussions 
between White House officials and Treasury Department officials and RTC 
officials. When you get into the subject matter of those conversations, 
then inevitably there will have to be questions about what occurred on 
the matters related to the subject. We do not know what they talked 
about. But they probably talked about McDougal advancing the funds that 
should have been paid for by President and First Lady Hillary Clinton.
  So that when you talk about those discussions, inevitably there is 
going to have to be an inquiry into some of the underlying substantive 
matters, even though that is a part of the subject matter which will be 
investigated in phase II by the special counsel.
  Mr. President, I must comment at this point that it is really 
demeaning, at least in my opinion, for the U.S. Senate to be taking a 
second-class position behind the independent counsel and deferring to 
him. The purpose of the independent counsel and his role in conducting 
a grand jury investigation, which is secret and looks for criminal 
prosecutions, is totally different from the responsibility of the U.S. 
Senate on a congressional inquiry. It is conceded generally that 
matters of public policy that the Senate looks into are of greater 
importance than individual prosecutions.
  That is not to say that the individual prosecutions are not 
important. That is not to say that the Senate should not exercise care 
to avoid interfering with the underlying prosecutions. If you come to a 
test case where you have important matters to be investigated by the 
Senate and it may conflict with the prosecution, you ought to try to 
work it out between the Senators and the prosecutor. But, Senators 
ought not make a commitment in advance to be deferential to the 
prosecutor and to give up our senatorial prerogatives carte blanche, 
lock, stock, and barrel, to the prosecutor, which is what we are doing 
here.
  The suggestion has been made--and I think it is pretty obvious--that 
the deference being made here is not a matter of protecting the 
prosecutions, which we can protect without that deference. Deference is 
being made to limit the investigation. It is--these are not Arlen 
Specter's words; these are the words of the New York Times--the 
``coverup'' which is involved here.
  So it is pretty galling, frankly, to be talking about a Senate 
inquiry, as a U.S. Senator and former prosecutor, which is subordinate 
to the prosecutor's inquiry. But that is the fact of life because there 
are 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans. That number may change. Senator 
Dole talks about television spots in the next election. But that is the 
mathematics.
  We had a lot of votes last week. That is going to be the mathematics 
of the vote today. But the least we can do is have it out as to what 
the underlying evidence is, and I hope the majority leader will join 
us. He was on the floor today. I know he has to make his own schedule. 
I know he has a lot of commitments. I will do my best--if not today, 
then tomorrow, the day after, sometime in the future--to talk about the 
matters factually, which I am happy to address with the majority leader 
present.
  Mr. President, it is insufficient to have the scope of the 
investigation limited, under the Mitchell resolution, to 
``communications between officials of the White House and the 
Department of Treasury''--where the Resolution Trust Corporation 
related to Whitewater Development Corp. and Madison Guaranty Savings & 
Loan. It just not sufficient to limit it to White House, Treasury, and 
RTC. I had this discussion briefly with the majority leader on the 
15th, as the Congressional Record shows.
  The reason that is not sufficient, Mr. President, is that there are 
others who are involved in these discussions. I now refer to materials 
which were disclosed by Congressman Jim Leach, who has done an 
outstanding job in ferreting out materials on the House side. This 
document that I refer to is a memorandum from L. Jean Lewis to L. 
Richard Iorio. Ms. Lewis relates a conversation which occurred on May 
19, 1993, where Ms. Dyone Mitchell of the Office of Legal Counsel of 
the Department of Justice advised that a prosecution matter had been 
forwarded on to Ms. Donna Henneman in Legal Counsel.
  Jean Lewis then contacted Ms. Henneman and explained that it was a 
referral out of Madison Guaranty forwarded to a Mr. Chuck Banks, who 
had been in the U.S. attorney's office. According to this memorandum, 
written by Jean Lewis of the RTC, Ms. Henneman.

       . . . had immediate knowledge, stating, ``Oh, the one 
     involving the President and his wife.''

  She then stated that is, Ms. Henneman stated, according to this 
memorandum from Jean Lewis--that the referral had been submitted to 
that office as a ``special report'' for the attention of the Attorney 
General, and not as a referral for the prosecution.
  She then stated--that is, Ms. Henneman said to Ms. Lewis--that:

       Anytime a referral comes in that would make the Department 
     look bad, or has political ramifications, it goes to the 
     Attorney General.

  She further added that the referral had been submitted to that 
office:

       . . . because of the political ramifications and the 
     political motivations.

  When you are dealing with influence of the White House, how can you 
limit the investigation to the Department of Treasury and the 
Resolution Trust Corporation, when there are documents which show that 
the Department of Justice was involved and that the referral was made 
to the Attorney General personally?
  Whether it got to the Attorney General, or what the Attorney General 
did, or whether the Attorney General was involved, I do not know.
  By my comments, I do not cast any aspersions on the Attorney General 
or on anyone else. But this kind of a memorandum, which is a smoking 
gun, requires that the scope of the investigation include the 
Department of Justice, the U.S. attorneys where the referral was made, 
and the Attorney General, to see precisely what happened.
  That is point one, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, there is a time limitation on which I have just 
consulted with my colleague, Senator D'Amato. So I shall be brief. 
Perhaps we will revisit this at another time. I will put these 
documents in the Record.
  There is a notation by Jean Lewis concerning a discussion with FDIC 
attorney April Breslaw, where Ms. Breslaw stated that:

       . . . the ``head people'' would like to be able to say that 
     Whitewater did not cause a loss to Madison, but the problem 
     is so far that no one has been able to say that to them.

  April Breslaw said because it ``would get them off the hook.''
  The memo goes on to say:

       If you know that your mortgages are being paid, but you are 
     not putting money into the venture, and you know that the 
     venture is not cash flowing, wouldn't you just question the 
     source of the funds being used to your benefit?

  That is referring to the obligations to pay the mortgage that the 
President and First Lady Hillary Clinton had, and refers to the source 
of the money coming from Mr. McDougal.
  Last week, I had an extended discussion with the majority leader on 
the issue of including the Office of Thrift Supervision in the scope of 
the resolution because it is insufficient on its face when it refers 
only to the Treasury and RTC.
  An article in the New York Times dated March 16, 1994, sums it up as 
follows:

       Clinton administration officials last year rejected a 
     recommendation by a senior regulator to open a Treasury 
     Department investigation into the failed savings and loan 
     association owned by President Clinton's former partner in 
     the Whitewater venture. . . .
       The request to open a broad investigation of the savings 
     institution was made by Brian McCormally, the top enforcement 
     official for the Midwestern division of the Office of Thrift 
     Supervision . . .
       . . . the request was turned down last fall by Mr. 
     McCormally's supervisors in Washington, Carolyn Lieberman, 
     acting counsel to the thrift supervision office, and Jonathan 
     Fiechter, acting director of the office. They report to 
     senior political appointees at the Treasury Department, and 
     rarely make major decisions without high-level consultations.

  On its face, this demonstrates a need to go into the Office of Thrift 
Supervision, a need which is not comprehended within the Mitchell 
amendment, but is comprehended within the Dole amendment.
  Point four: The issue involving David Hale, a matter which occurred 
after President Clinton became President so it is within phase I.
  Now I quote from the New York Times of March 21, 1994:

       With profits from that deal in hand, Mr. Hale's company 
     made a number of loans to people connected to Arkansas 
     Democratic politics. The largest was a $300,000 loan in April 
     1986 to Mr. McDougal's wife Susan. Mr. Hale has asserted that 
     both Mr. Clinton and Mr. McDougal pressed him to make the 
     $300,000 loan, knowing it would not be used by Mrs. McDougal.

  And further in the article.

       It is not clear what happened to the $300,000. But some 
     money from the loan appeared to wind up for a while in 1986 
     in Whitewater as part of a land deal. Mr. McDougal has said 
     that the Clintons, his partners in Whitewater, were unaware 
     of that transaction.

  Here you have the U.S. Attorney operating in the Department of 
Justice, part of the Clinton administration, while President Clinton 
was in office, and this inquiry is foreclosed by the Mitchell 
amendment. It would be permitted by the Dole amendment.
  The Mitchell amendment does relate to the alleged suicide of Vincent 
Foster, but, on its face, that provision is so narrowly circumscribed 
that it may well prevent the Senate inquiry from going into related 
factors which have to be investigated if there is to be any sense made 
out of the matter relating to the Foster suicide.
  On July 20, 1993, a Federal magistrate in Little Rock authorized a 
search warrant for the business offices of David Hale. Hours later, 
Vincent Foster left his office and allegedly committed suicide. Mr. 
Foster had received calls from a former colleague in the Rose law firm 
and the Denver lawyer James Lyon, who prepared the Whitewater review 
for the campaign in 1992.
  The Washington Post on December 19, 1993 noted the failure to have 
the Whitewater tax returns filed and that they were prepared later by 
an Arkansas firm under the direction of the late Vincent Foster.
  Those are matters, Mr. President, which should be inquired into if 
there is to be any real substance to the very narrow articulation of 
the Mitchell amendment.
  I note my colleague Senator Cohen is on the floor and time has been 
reserved been for him.
  So I will conclude, Mr. President, with a request. I ask unanimous 
consent that the full memorandum, dated May 19, 1993 from L. Jean Lewis 
to L. Richard Iorio be printed in the Record and the two-page notes of 
conversation between RTC senior criminal investigator L. Jean Lewis and 
FDIC attorney April Breslaw be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     To: L. Richard Iorio.
     CC: Lee O. Ausen.
     From: L. Jean Lewis.
     Subject: #7236/Madison Guaranty Savings
     Date: Wednesday, May 19, 1993 15:55:03 CDT
       In following up on the suggestion that Mr. Daniel Koffsky, 
     Acting Assistant Attorney General, be sent a copy of Madison 
     referral #C0004, I contacted the Office of Legal Counsel to 
     verify the correct address. In speaking with Dyone Mitchell 
     of that office, I reiterated the address provided by US Atty 
     Richard Pence, which reads:

       Office of Legal Counsel
       Executive Office for the U.S. Attorneys
       U.S. Justice Department
       Washington, DC 20530

       The letter provided the phone number (202) 514-2041.
       Ms. Mitchell advised that the Office of Legal Counsel and 
     the Executive Office for the U.S. Attorney's were two 
     separate sections, and that the referral may have been 
     forwarded to the Executive Office instead of Legal Counsel. 
     She then connected me with the operator, who put me through 
     to the Executive Office where I spoke with Stephanie Kennedy. 
     I explained to Ms. Kennedy what I was looking for, and she 
     said she would get back to me this afternoon.
       She called me back at 3:30, and advised that she had 
     forwarded the matter on to Donna Henneman in ``Legal 
     Counsel'', who would check it out and call me back tomorrow. 
     I then contacted Ms. Henneman to offer background information 
     on what I was looking for. When I explained that it was a 
     referral out of Madison Guaranty, forwarded to that office by 
     Chuck Banks, she had immediate knowledge, stating ``oh, the 
     one involving the President and his wife''. She then stated 
     that the referral had been sent to that office (exactly which 
     office is still unclear to me) as a special report for the 
     attention of the Attorney General, and not as a referral for 
     prosecution. She then stated that ``anytime a referral comes 
     in that would make the department look bad, or has political 
     ramifications, it goes to the Attorney General.'' She further 
     added that the referral had been submitted to that office 
     ``because of the political ramifications and political 
     motivations'', and then told me that referrals were not 
     prosecuted out of that office. She then stated that the 
     referral had been declined. I advised her that the referral 
     had not been declined, and read her the letter sent to this 
     office by U.S. Attorney Richard Pence. She acknowledged that 
     she was confused, and told me she would speak with her 
     supervisor, Deborah Westbrook, and have her call me back 
     tomorrow. I then asked for Ms. Henneman's title, and she 
     informed me that she was the Ethics Program Manager. I 
     thanked her and ended the conversation.
       I'll keep you posted if and when I hear from Ms. Westbrook.
                                  ____

       Notes from the conversation between RTC Senior Criminal 
     Investigator L. Jean Lewis and FDIC Attorney April Breslaw on 
     February 2, 1994, from approximately 3:50 p.m. until 4:35 
     p.m.
       April stated that ``the people at the top'' keep getting 
     asked about Whitewater, which seems to have become a catch 
     all phrase for Madison and its related investigations. She 
     said that eventually ``this group'' is going to have to make 
     a statement about whether or not Whitewater caused a loss to 
     Madison, but the fact that Whitewater had no loan at Madison 
     and provided less potential for a loss. April stated very 
     clearly that Ryan and Kulka (7), the ``head people'' would 
     like to be able to say that Whitewater did not cause a loss 
     to Madison, but the problem is that so far no one has been 
     able to say that to them. She felt like they wanted to be 
     able to provide an ``honest answer'', but that there were 
     certain answers that they would be ``happier about, because 
     it would get them off the hook.''
       April felt that it would have been difficult to determine 
     exactly what happened with the Whitewater account, because so 
     many checks had gone in and out of the account, and made a 
     reference to the end resulting netting itself out. She joked 
     about Greg Young's work papers on the Maple Creek Farms 
     reserve for development analysis, and how it didn't seem to 
     have any apparent tie to Whitewater. I concurred that it 
     didn't have any legitimately defined tie, which is precisely 
     why it was included in the referral.
       She inquired about the $30,000 check to Jim McDougal from 
     Whitewater in 5/85, and about the disposition of the funds. I 
     explained the transaction as I know it: the $30,000 had been 
     converted to a MGS&L cashier's check, which was subsequently 
     endorsed by and deposited to Riggs National Bank. I explained 
     that when the check was force paid, the Whitewater account 
     was overdrawn by over $28,000 which was then subsequently 
     covered by the payment of a $30,000 bonus from WFC to Jim 
     McDougal, deposited directly to Whitewater on McDougal's 
     orders.
       She asked how we could get to a clear cut answer as to 
     whether or not Whitewater caused a loss to Madison. I stated 
     that, as far as I am concerned, there is a clear cut loss. I 
     also stated that any attempt to extract Whitewater as one 
     entity from the rest of the McDougal controlled entities 
     involved in the alleged check kite will distort the entire 
     picture. I further pointed out that I would produce the 
     answers that were available, but that I would not facilitate 
     providing ``the people at the top'' with the ``politically 
     correct answers just to get them off the hook.''
       She asked questions about the specifics of the checks going 
     through the Whitewater account. I stated that it appeared 
     that the majority of the checks written out of the Whitewater 
     account during the window time frame were going to other 
     financial institutions to make loan payments. I also said 
     that the referral focused only on a short time frame, but 
     that if that same research were conducted for a two year 
     period, it was my belief that the losses to Madison from the 
     Whitewater account alone would easily exceed $100,000, given 
     that $70,000 had gone out of the account during the six month 
     window time frame. I further added that the end loss result 
     from the entire scam, using all 12 companies/entities, would 
     be hundreds of thousands of dollars in what were essentially 
     unauthorized loans.
       I stated that if she wanted me to tell her, unequivocally, 
     that Whitewater didn't cause a loss, I could not do that. I 
     could only reiterate the allegations contained in the 
     referral, which are based on fact, and that it is my opinion 
     and belief that Whitewater did, in fact, cause a loss to 
     Madison because of the amount of the unauthorized loans that 
     McDougal made, through the check kite, to entities in which 
     he was a primary party and beneficiary. I also pointed out 
     that this ultimately benefited his business partners--the 
     same business partners that knew they had real estate 
     ventures that were not cash flowing, but that also knew their 
     mortgage and/or notes were somehow being paid. I pointed out 
     that these business partners are intelligent individuals, the 
     majority of them being attorneys, who must have concluded 
     that McDougal was making the payments for their benefit. I 
     posed the question to her, if you know that your mortgages 
     are being paid, but you aren't putting money into the 
     venture, and you also know the venture isn't cash flowing, 
     wouldn't you question the source of the funds being used to 
     your benefit? Would you just assume that your partner was 
     making these multi-thousand dollar payments out of the 
     goodness of his heart? Wouldn't you wonder even more if you 
     knew that your business partner's main source of income, an 
     S&L, was in serious financial difficulty, which by 1985 was 
     fairly common knowledge?
       We discussed the initiation of the MGSL investigation, and 
     how evidence of the check kite came to light. I explained 
     that after reviewing a series of checks, all of which noted 
     ``loan'' in the memo field, I discerned a pattern that looked 
     like a check kite, and proceeded to trace funds through the 
     various accounts, which is a standard investigations 
     procedures. The end result was the referral alleging a 
     massive check kite. I also advised April that I had been told 
     by both the U.S. Attorney's office (Mac Dodson), and the FBI 
     (Steve Irons) that this was a highly prosecutable case of 
     check kiting. I also told her that I disputed the declination 
     of that referral on the basis of ``insufficient 
     information''. She commented that ``that's what Grand Juries 
     are for'', and I pointed out that it generally seemed to be 
     the policy of the U.S. Attorney to agree to open a case 
     before they would start Grand Jury proceedings. I also noted 
     that I found the treatment of that particular referral by the 
     Justice Department to be highly unusual. This concluded our 
     discussion.

  Mr. SPECTER. That will be sufficient without encumbering the Record 
further.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato].
  Mr. D'AMATO. I yield to the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen], 15 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. President, I take the floor today not with a hope that we may 
change the ultimate outcome of the vote that will occur later this 
afternoon but at least to express my sense of frustration and 
opposition to the kind of double standard that is now being exhibited 
through the legislation proposed by the majority.
  When the Iran-Contra scandal unfolded, the notion of a sale of 
weapons to Iran was in complete contradiction to the articulated public 
policy on the part of the Reagan administration, and many people, 
including myself, were justifiably outraged that we would have one 
public policy and a private policy that contradicted it.
  When the diversion became a matter of public knowledge, it only 
compounded the sense of outrage that our system was being distorted or 
indeed perverted in a way that was inconsistent with our democratic 
values.
  At that time, there were a number of committees that had 
jurisdiction--the Intelligence Committee, Foreign Relations Committee, 
and Armed Services Committee. There was the prospect there would be 
multiple investigations into these allegations about the wrongful sale 
and diversion of funds to the Nicaraguan contras.
  At that time, the majority decided it should establish a select 
committee, and I recall the kind of calculation that was involved in 
resolving the composition of that committee. We in the minority sat 
back and waited to see whether the majority would appoint Members who 
were renowned for their partisanship and then we would respond in kind.
  That did not occur. I think both leaders felt at that time that the 
Senate would distinguish itself only by appointing Members who would 
conduct those hearings in the most impartial fashion possible. That is 
outlined in the book that Senator Mitchell and I coauthored called 
``Men of Zeal,'' and I will not take the time to quote from the 
specific passages, but I later will submit those for the Record, 
including recommendations how future investigations ought to be 
conducted when there are allegations of either misuse of Federal 
agencies or personnel or other types of inappropriate conduct by the 
executive branch.
  The experience to date on Whitewater is quite different. From the 
very beginning, the majority has said we do not care what the 
allegations are; there will be no hearings, period. The Justice 
Department is conducting whatever investigations are appropriate.
  It was only after there were certain revelations that perhaps the 
Justice Department was not as independent as it portrayed itself to be 
that finally the majority relented, and I might point out it has taken 
this Congress and this Senate longer to agree to appoint a committee or 
to authorize a committee to investigate the allegations than it did to 
conduct the entire Iran-Contra investigation. The entire investigation 
was conducted within a 9-month period. Discussions over Whitewater 
hearings began last October, and we still do not know if hearings can 
be set up by August because we do not know whether the special 
prosecutor will complete his investigation by that time.
  But in any event, we finally found the majority willing to appoint a 
special prosecutor. But then the argument became now with the special 
prosecutor you cannot have any hearings whatsoever. In my judgment, at 
that time, no Whitewater allegations rose to a level of criminal 
misconduct. The majority said you can have a special prosecutor and we 
agreed because that is all we could get.
  But, of course, the special prosecutor investigation is conducted in 
private. It is conducted in a courtroom in which cameras are not 
allowed, and everyone in this Chamber knows that the public does not 
have as great an appreciation or understanding of the issues involved 
unless they can see them, unless they can look at the witnesses, unless 
they can make some assessment as to the truth or veracity or lack 
thereof on the part of any given witness. Only when the public can see 
them discussed and debated openly do they really understand the depth 
of the issues. Of course, if you have a special prosecutor, you never 
get to see that. You will read about it and, indeed, I wonder how many 
have bothered to read the final report that was filed by independent 
counsel, Mr. Walsh, Judge Walsh. I doubt if few beyond this beltway, 
maybe not within the beltway, ever bothered to read it.

  So everybody understands, if you can just keep the people away from 
congressional hearings, whatever the outcome, the special prosecutor 
will have a minimal effect, if any at all.
  I must say with respect to Iran-Contra that, had the Congress at that 
time yielded to Judge Walsh, who said, ``Please, don't go forward with 
your hearings,'' I doubt very much whether the public would have had 
the same understanding of the gravity of the issues involved in that 
scandal. During those hearings, we learned not only was there a sale of 
weapons to Iran, a terrorist country, and a diversion of funds to the 
Nicaraguan Contras, in violation of the Boland amendments. I believe 
there was a violation of the Boland amendments, and I think the courts 
agreed on that issue. A separate, off-the-shelf, stand-alone, self-
sustaining capability to carry out future covert activity was created, 
as we recall Colonel North telling us before the cameras at that time.
  I think one of the most dangerous aspects of that entire event was 
the creation of a private, stand-alone, self-sustaining covert 
capability that undermined the foundation of our democratic system that 
might not have been revealed until long after President Reagan and 
maybe even President Bush left office.
  So it was imperative that the Congress exercised its constitutional 
responsibility under those circumstances as we did. But in view of what 
happened, because Colonel North's conviction was overturned and that of 
Admiral Poindexter because of the use of their testimony, Congress has 
reacted with some caution, as I think it is appropriate.
  I think it is appropriate that we try to take into account the needs 
and responsibilities of the special counsel.
  I attended the meeting with Mr. Fiske and Senator D'Amato, my 
colleague from New York. I believe we reached an understanding at that 
time; namely, that he should be allowed to proceed with--we should not 
call it the first phase, because he is conducting the investigation 
simultaneously --that aspect of his investigation that surrounded 
allegations that pertained to the President and his administration 
since the time he took office. That was the understanding about the 
Washington aspect of his investigation.
  And I might point out, by the way, that he felt that he could 
conclude that aspect of his investigation ``within a few weeks,'' were 
his exact words. That was back, as I recall, in either early or mid-
March. So it is not a few weeks. It is March, it is April, it is May, 
it is June, and now we are told it is July. But, fair enough, if it 
takes that long to conduct his investigation.
  But we said we would not grant any immunity to any of the witnesses 
and that we would try to structure the hearings and, as I recall, I 
insisted upon the words ``structure and sequence the hearings'' so as 
not to either interfere with or undermine his investigation.
  The majority leader has taken the position that we cannot even begin 
to hold hearings until Mr. Fiske has completed the subject of his 
investigation, the so-called Washington matter. But the Washington 
matter has been confined to three specific areas.
  That was not my understanding of the agreement that we reached with 
Mr. Fiske. We said that we would defer our investigation or call for 
hearings until such time as he completed his investigation into those 
matters that pertained to the time the President took office. And, 
frankly, I think that is the way it should be structured. Let the 
special prosecutor go back 10 years or however long in the past, let 
him do that without interference or hindrance on the part of Congress.
  But we did not at any time understand that to mean we would only be 
limited to three specific subject matters.
  The majority leader has interpreted this Washington matter as only 
that which occurred in Washington. I find that hard to comprehend. If 
something occurred in Virginia or Maryland or perhaps St. Louis or 
Kansas City, then it is out of bounds? That clearly was not the 
understanding that Senator D'Amato and Mr. Fiske and I reached at that 
time.
  So now we have the situation that, I suggest respectfully, the 
majority has taken us back to October of last year--no hearings into 
the subject matters that the minority would like to investigate under 
any circumstances, because now we have delegated to the special 
prosecutor not only the timing as to when we can hold hearings--we 
cannot begin until he says so--but now we also delegated to him the 
responsibility of deciding what we can investigate.
  So we have the ironic situation where we have to wait for Mr. Fiske 
to complete every aspect of the so-called Washington matter, which is 
strictly confined to events in Washington, DC, and we also have to 
abide by his determination as to what is important and what is not 
important, because if he has not investigated it, we cannot investigate 
it.
  I have never heard of anything as restrictive as this. The special 
prosecutor defines when and what. And if he does not investigate, 
Congress is out of bounds, it can not investigate. That is the 
interpretation the majority is now offering the U.S. Senate?
  I think it is unprecedented, Mr. President. I think it is clearly a 
partisan ploy. And so let us not have the cry that it is simply raw 
politics being played over on this side of the aisle. It is politics 
being played on both sides of the aisle. We ought to understand that.
  The majority is concerned that there are Members over here who would 
like to embarrass the President. That may be; that may be. I have 
stated time and time again that I personally do not want to see the 
President embarrassed. I hope he will not be embarrassed.
  But I have also taken the position that, if you have nothing to hide, 
you have nothing to fear. If there is nothing out there, then do not be 
worried about it. If there is nothing to embarrass the President about, 
he will not be embarrassed.
  Do you know who will be embarrassed? We will be embarrassed. Any 
Republican Member who seeks to make something out of nothing, who seeks 
to exploit an issue solely for the purpose of causing embarrassment to 
the President of the United States, the public will react to that. The 
camera does not lie. The public will be able to look in on those 
proceedings and see that this individual or that individual is not 
interested in finding the facts but simply trying to trash the 
President or the First Lady. We will receive an overwhelmingly negative 
reaction if that is the goal and motive in the procedure and the 
tactics that are adopted by the minority.
  Mr. President, nothing that I say here today is going to change the 
outcome, because we are talking about something called pure power. The 
precedent is being set that, in the future, if there is ever a special 
counsel or independent counsel who has been appointed to investigate 
allegations of wrongdoing or misuse of power or authority or agencies 
or personnel, once that independent counsel has been appointed, 
Congress can no longer hold hearings on that subject matter. That is 
the precedent being set.
  Second, if Congress is going to be allowed to hold hearings, it can 
only inquire into those areas that the independent counsel has inquired 
into and none other. That, too, is a precedent being set here today.
  Last week, I said that is a very dangerous precedent. I want to 
modify that because I do not think precedents count much anymore. I do 
not think precedents mean anything anymore, not in this body.
  Because being in the majority means never having to say you are sorry 
or to be bound by the rules, because you make the rules. Whatever the 
majority says, that is what the rule is going to be and we do not care 
about setting a precedent, ignoring a precedent, or overturning a 
precedent.
  Sometime in the future, Mr. President, be it 1994 or 1996 or the year 
2000, the majority in the Senate is going to change, and once again so 
will the rules change. I think it is unfortunate. I think something is 
being lost in this institution by what we are going through right now, 
because I think what we are witnessing is a turning of the Senate into 
something akin to the House of Representatives, where the majority can 
fill up the tree when it comes time to debating a President's stimulus 
package, or block every single amendment offered on this side by simply 
having recognition of the majority leader to offer a second-degree 
amendment and therefore, be prevented from voting on Republican 
amendments.
  I must tell you, when that happens, when you do that, you will 
prevail on this today, but when you do that, you are succeeding in 
hardening the hearts and the spirits of some of us on this side who 
have dedicated their careers to working toward the middle, toward 
seeking compromise, of moderation, of working with the majority to come 
up with what we believe to be in the best interest of the people of 
this country. It may very well, in my judgment, affect the way in which 
we react and respond to the majority in other areas that are of 
interest to this country. That is not going to bode well for the 
country. It is not going to bode well for the Senate. I suggest it is 
likely to be the legacy of this Congress, that we took the Senate as an 
institution that we had loved in the past and which revered the rights 
of the minority in the past and protected them, and we started down the 
road of turning this body into another one which will not bear much 
resemblance to what it used to be.

  Mr. President, I say this with some regret. I thought the amendment 
that was offered by my colleague from New York went too far in 
requesting too much. I feel the majority leader's proposal is much too 
restrictive. I felt there were legitimate areas the minority should be 
allowed to question and to structure the committee investigation in a 
way that would produce the best possible results.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I yield the Senator from Maine an additional 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for an 
additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. I say this on a note of regret. What I see taking place in 
this institution is more partisanship, more polarization, more 
backbiting, less willingness to accommodate the interests of the other, 
less willingness to work out our differences--and an eagerness, 
perhaps, to throw down the line saying this is all you are going to 
get.
  If that is going to be the case for the duration of this Congress, I 
suspect it is going to spill over to the next Congress because the 
numbers are likely to change. We may pick up a few seats. We may pick 
up perhaps even a majority. Then the tables will be turned. And when 
the argument is made of appealing to the majority at that time, there 
will be a stone ear. I do not think that would be in the best interests 
of this body. It would certainly not be in the best interests of the 
country. I think we ought to strive to reach an accommodation. We have 
not done that to date. It has been majority rule. They have said, ``We 
dictate, these are our rules, take it or leave it.'' That should not be 
the legacy that we leave for this institution.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Chair recognizes 
the Senator from New York, [Mr. D'Amato].
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, we are under a rather strict time 
limitation. I have a number of colleagues who indicated they would like 
to speak to this issue. The fact is, some of them are not here. Up 
until now we have used their time. There is no one present on the other 
side. I understand, if we go into a quorum call, time will be deducted, 
is that right, equally from each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would advise that the time is 
deducted against the time allotted to the side that requests the quorum 
call unless unanimous consent agreement has been sought.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I believe there has been a unanimous consent propounded, 
and I submit again, in the interests of fairness, that the time be 
deducted equally from both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will advise the Senator, that is 
done on a case-by-case basis.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I renew my request. I suggest the absence of a quorum, 
and I request that time be deducted equally from both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, on March 17 of this year I received a 
letter from the Office of Thrift Supervision, from Jonathan Fiechter, 
the Acting Director. Mr. Fiechter sent me this letter in response to a 
New York Times article which appeared the day before. Quite unusual.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 Office of Thrift Supervision,

                                   Washington, DC, March 17, 1994.
     Hon. Alfonse M. D'Amato,
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator D'Amato: I am writing you to respond to 
     inaccuracies that appeared in a March 16, 1994 ``New York 
     Times'' article regarding enforcement decisions it is 
     asserted I made related to Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan. 
     Although OTS does not ordinarily make an effort to point out 
     inaccuracies in press articles, because this article has 
     generated significant media and Congressional interest, I 
     believe the effort here is worthwhile. My response must be 
     limited, however, because it is OTS policy (similar to that 
     of other agencies with enforcement powers) to refrain from 
     discussing whether or not an enforcement action is underway 
     or was ever contemplated or rejected.
       The article contains a report that OTS (specifically, 
     myself and the Acting Chief Counsel) turned down a request 
     from a senior lawyer in the Midwest region to open a formal 
     investigation into Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan. The 
     article goes on to imply that this decision was made in 
     consultation with senior political appointees at the Treasury 
     Department, because the Chief Counsel and I ``rarely make 
     major decisions without high-level consultations.''
       First, contrary to the statement in the article, in my 
     fifteen months as Acting Director, I have never been a party 
     to any decisions either to initiate or not to initiate any 
     investigations involving thrift institutions. My involvement 
     in enforcement actions occurs only at the end of the process, 
     after an investigation is completed, and a notice of charges 
     or a consent agreement is presented to me for decision.
       Second, formal investigations are proposed by regional exam 
     staff in consultation with regional enforcement attorneys, 
     considered by the enforcement review committee and regional 
     director of the region in which the thrift is located, and, 
     if approved, forwarded to the Chief Counsel for concurrence 
     in consultation with the Deputy Director for Regional 
     Operations.
       Third, neither I nor OTS staff consult with Treasury 
     Department officials on enforcement actions. The Financial 
     Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 
     (FIRREA) specifically prohibited such consultations, and we 
     have adhered scrupulously to this requirement.
       The OTS is a bureau of Treasury. I report to Frank Newman, 
     Under Secretary of the Treasury. The only conversation I have 
     ever had with Treasury regarding OTS enforcement activities 
     relating to Madison occurred on March 16, 1994 when Mr. 
     Newman mentioned the New York Times article and asked whether 
     I had ever consulted with anyone at Treasury regarding any 
     investigations or enforcement actions. I assured him that I 
     had not had any conversations with Treasury officials on 
     enforcement-related activities regarding Madison and that I 
     was unaware of any conversation or memoranda between OTS 
     staff and Treasury on this subject.
       The staff of the Office of Thrift Supervision has worked 
     diligently since the passage of FIRREA to restore the 
     credibility of the thrift regulatory function and to clean up 
     the thrift industry. Your committee has been supportive of 
     our efforts. While it is always possible to second guess our 
     decisions, I believe we have done a credible job of carrying 
     out our mission. Our decisions have been based solely on the 
     facts as we know them, applicable law, and the agency's 
     supervisory objectives.
           Sincerely,
                                             Jonathan L. Fiechter,
                                                  Acting Director.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, according to the March 16, 1994, article 
in the New York Times, the Office of Thrift Supervision, Jonathan 
Fiechter and acting counsel Carolyn Lieberman turned down a request 
from a senior lawyer in the Midwest region to open a formal 
investigation into Madison.
  I bring this up because this is the matter to which my distinguished 
colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, referred. He referred to, 
as it related to OTS, why the actions taken subsequent to President 
Clinton taking office were not covered in the scope of the hearing.
  We are talking about whether or not people in the administration, in 
the executive department, used their power to attempt to impede an 
investigation.
  Mr. President, is that a legitimate inquiry? Of course it is. On what 
basis could you possibly say that there should not be an inquiry of 
that matter? And, indeed, if Mr. Fiske completes his investigation--by 
the way, I do not concede this should be the case but even under the 
assumptions put forth by the Democratic leader that before you can look 
into anything, Mr. Fiske has to sign off--then why should not the 
actions of the Office of Thrift Supervision be looked into?
  Whether or not there is merit in the article of the 16th where Mr. 
Brian McCormally, as a senior lawyer from the Midwest region and a top 
law enforcement official in OTS, apparently requested to open, and I 
quote, ``a broadened investigation of Madison.'' The article does say 
that ``two reports to senior political appointees at the Treasury 
Department were made.''
  The article says that they were turned down. Mr. Fiechter says that 
never happened; that he certainly was not involved and he sent me a 
letter advising us of that.
  It seems to us that it is not a fishing expedition to ascertain 
exactly what took place. The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], 
is absolutely correct. We have a right to know, the American people 
have a right to know if Mr. McCormally was quoted inaccurately or if 
there was an attempt to stop a legitimate inquiry from being made 
relating to Whitewater? Was that undertaken by people from Treasury? 
Was Mr. Fiechter involved? He said he was not. I believe him. Who, if 
anybody was? Was this just a false rumor?
  Should we not have the ability to call Mr. McCormally before the 
committee and ascertain exactly what took place? Why would this be 
outside the scope of a hearing, a legitimate hearing? Is it because we 
are involved in a coverup? And I use that word, because I believe that 
there has been no explanation to date as to why the Office of Thrift 
Supervision, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and their 
employees did not follow through. They may or may not have been asked 
not to go forward with an investigation that they normally would have. 
Why would we not have the ability to make that kind of inquiry?
  Here we have an assertion that Mr. McCormally, a lawyer working for 
the Office of Thrift Supervision, made a request to open up an 
investigation into Madison, and that it was turned down. The article 
goes on to say that Treasury, and it quotes unnamed senior political 
appointees, rarely makes major decisions without high-level 
consultations. I do not think that is startling. Do you really believe 
that they undertake these kinds of decisions without consultation? Do 
we not have a right to ascertain who at Treasury may have been 
consulted, and what they did or did not do? Is that not a legitimate 
scope of a hearing?
  I say that Senator Specter is absolutely correct, and that is just 
one little aspect that needs to be answered. Why are we looking to deny 
legitimate hearings by excluding the Office of Thrift Supervision and 
the activities undertaken after the induction of President Clinton into 
the White House?
  I understand the argument that can be made that we do not want to 
impede other investigations. But if the so-called Washington phase has 
been completed, then why can we not look into this matter? Why would 
you want to have hearings that preclude us? And by the way, if we go 
forward with hearings, I will tell you that I will push this issue, 
there is no doubt about it, because there cannot be any legitimate 
purpose if we do not have the ability to ascertain truth or falsity and 
to ascertain whether or not there has been an abuse of power by the 
administration.
  We have a right to know. The people have a right to know. I have to 
tell you, I am not going to be silenced, nor are my colleagues going to 
be silenced, simply because one side has the votes. We still have in 
this country the ability to stand up and raise questions. People may 
not like it. People may attack you for it. But I can tell you, I am 
going to continue to press because I know it is correct; I know it is 
proper. I know there would not be one outcry from the other side if we 
had a different situation, if we had a Republican President and we said 
you could not ask the Office of Thrift Supervision any questions 
relating to whether someone tried to impede an investigation from going 
forward after the new administration took office.
  Can you imagine your colleagues saying: Oh no, you cannot ask that 
question. Ridiculous. But we are being told we cannot ask that 
question. Why? We are asking whether or not there has been an abuse of 
power, an attempt to stifle an investigation. Why can we not ask 
Treasury Department people about their possible contacts with the 
Office of Thrift Supervision and whether they kept them from looking 
into Madison?
  That is what you are saying in this resolution. You cannot do it. 
Why? Did Mr. Fiske tell you you cannot look into this? He said: When I 
am done with my phase, you can do it. OK, fine. If he is done with his 
Washington phase, why can we not do it?
  Do taxpayers not have the right to know whether agencies like the 
Office of Thrift Supervision, like the Office of Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation, were precluded from taking actions they normally 
would have taken except that there was political interference either by 
the Justice Department or by the Treasury Department? They do not have 
a right to know that?
  That is what we are getting to, and that is exactly what the majority 
leader's resolution would stop us from doing, asking that kind of 
question.
  Have they had secret meetings? Have they had contacts with the White 
House? Did they direct you to do certain things? People have a right to 
know. And yet we will not be able to pursue this. Just a little office 
like the Office of Thrift Supervision, just something that seems to me 
to be rather critical in this whole matter. Was there an abuse of power 
by the executive? Was there an attempt by the executive to stop a 
legitimate investigation from going forward into Whitewater/Madison as 
it related to the use of taxpayers' money?
  Now, why would the OTS and the individuals who were involved not be 
asked whether or not they were permitted to do their job which is to 
ascertain whether or not Whitewater dollars were used illegally or 
whether taxpayers' money were used unreasonably, unethically, unfairly, 
and whether or not there was criminal and/or civil liability. Do you 
mean to tell me that speaking to the Treasury Department about that at 
a hearing and saying to a Treasury Department person: Did you have 
contact with the Office of Thrift Supervision--which is, by the way, 
part of them and they are allowed to operate in an independent manner. 
Can't we ask: Did you attempt to stifle them from going forward? Did 
you speak to Mr. McCormally? Did you speak to McCormally's supervisor? 
Did you tell them that no formal investigation could be opened up?
  Do you mean to tell me we do not have the right to ask that question? 
What a lot of nonsense. What a lot of baloney. And I have to hear it is 
politics. I will tell you politics, politics on the Democratic side. It 
is a whitewash. We cannot even ask the Treasury Department whether or 
not they kept the Office of Thrift Supervision from doing their job 
after the President came into office. You mean to tell me that you are 
going to go forward and tell the American people that these are 
legitimate hearings? Nonsense. You may try, but you are not going to 
get away with it, absolutely not. And you can call me any name you 
want. You can deride me, et cetera, but I have to tell you something. 
We happen to be asking what is right and what is fair.
  And there is politics involved. It is politics of a coverup. You 
would not dare attempt to impede an investigation of this type into a 
Republican President. No way. What else do you call what you are doing 
if it is not stonewalling?
  Imagine, you cannot ask the Treasury Department whether or not they 
have had contacts and attempted to keep OTS from doing their job.
  Now, I believe Fiechter. In his letter to me, he says he had no 
contact. I believe him. Were there others who did? Were there other 
people in Treasury who spoke to people in OTS that Mr. Fiechter may not 
have been aware of? Do we not have a right to know? And, by the way, if 
there was no one, then fine. Fine. But let us at least look into it. 
And that is one little area of the absurdity of the resolution which we 
are being asked to pass, which so limits the hearings that there will 
not be fair hearings.
  Mr. President, I see that my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator 
Nickles, is here. I yield the floor for 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from New 
York. I also wish to compliment him for his leadership and his 
statement that he has made this morning, as well as last week, on this 
issue. I would concur with the analysis of his statement. I think that 
if we pass Senator Mitchell's resolution we will be doing a disservice 
to the Senate, a significant disservice to the Senate.
  Today we will be closing another chapter in the ongoing Whitewater 
matter. And in this Senator's opinion, it has been a very disappointing 
chapter.
  It did not start that way, and it certainly does not have to end that 
way. The Senate voted 98 to 0 last March 17 to conduct hearings on all 
matters related to Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association, 
Whitewater Development Corp., and Capital Management Services, Inc.
  The distinguished leaders began good-faith negotiations on the 
appropriate timetable, procedure, and forum for those hearings.
  The negotiations did not conclude successfully, and that is 
unfortunate. The leaders respectfully agreed to disagree. But that is 
not all that has happened.
  After the distinguished Republican leader and the Senator from New 
York offered their resolution last month, the majority leader responded 
with his own resolution. That resolution represented a stunning 
reversal from the manner in which we conducted our oversight 
responsibilities during a whole host of matters during the last two 
administrations.
  Those precedents include limiting the scope of the investigation to 
only three items, nothing having to do with the real issue of 
Whitewater, whether the Governor of Arkansas, Mr. Clinton, abused his 
power and contributed to the failure of a savings and loan that cost 
taxpayers more than $47 million.
  Another precedent is what I call taking the Fiske, giving specific 
counsel appointed by the executive branch virtual veto power over the 
Senate's investigation of this matter. During the 14 years I have been 
in the Senate, the Senate has conducted or investigated at least 25 
hearings having to do with alleged wrongdoings in the executive branch. 
Not once have we ever hid behind the independent counsel or special 
prosecutor. This is an alarming abrogation of our responsibilities.
  That is not all. The majority leader, through the use of the second-
degree amendments, refused to permit up-and-down votes to expand his 
resolution to include other aspects of the Whitewater matter. That is a 
serious infringement on the rights of the minority in the Senate, a 
very bad precedent for any majority leader to establish.
  It has already been discussed here. Even the editorial pages of the 
New York Times last Friday took the majority to task for prolonging the 
uncertainty and raising the specter of a coverup.
  I might mention, too--I said this last week; I urge my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to think about it--the procedures which the 
majority leader used last week could be repeated, it could be repeated 
on the other side. We may have a change in leadership in the Senate--
maybe in 6 months. I would like to think that the minority would have 
the right to offer amendments and not automatically be in the second 
degree where their amendments are not even offered, and certainly to be 
in the second degree, not by amendments that are germane to the pending 
amendment offered by the minority and basically offering the same 
amendment 10 or 12 times.
  Today, the Republican leader and the distinguished Senator from New 
York have offered a resolution that bends over backward to accommodate 
the majority. It simply expands the investigation in one additional 
area where anyone ``engaged in the illegal, improper or unauthorized or 
unethical conduct related to Whitewater, Madison, or Capital Management 
Services since Bill Clinton took office as President of the United 
States.''
  This forces us to put aside for now some of the most important 
questions about Whitewater. Did Governor Clinton receive illegal 
campaign contributions from a federally chartered savings and loan? 
Were federally insured deposits diverted to pay Mr. Clinton's 
Whitewater debts? Did the Clintons use Whitewater to underreport their 
income and avoid paying income taxes? Did then-Governor Clinton 
pressure an SBA-backed company into giving him an illegal loan that he 
may have benefited from as a Whitewater investor?
  Each of those questions is related to a specific criminal statute of 
the United States Code. Those questions have been around for more than 
2 years since the New York Times first broke the Whitewater story on 
March 8, 1992.
  The Senate has voted to prevent any serious discussion or 
investigation of these matters, even if they come up in hearings we 
have already voted to begin next month. We will just have to wait a 
little longer for the answers.
  The choice we have today is twofold: Do the Whitewater hearings begin 
on July 22 or July 29? And do they actually look into any aspects of 
Whitewater? These hearings should have begun a long time ago.
  The first revelations into Whitewater occurred more than 2 years ago. 
The most recent revelations began before Thanksgiving. On the first day 
of winter, our leader and the Senator from New York asked the Banking 
Committee to being hearings into the matter. Here we are, exactly 6 
months later, and we are still debating. We should be ashamed of 
ourselves for this procrastination.
  Some have suggested that a broader resolution would somehow interfere 
with the special counsel's investigation. No one wants to interfere 
with his investigation, and I have confidence that the Banking 
Committee or a select committee would have proceeded responsibly.
  But broader hearings can actually help the special counsel do his 
job. One of the important aspects of the special counsel's 
investigation occurred as the result of information learned at a 
Banking Committee oversight hearing. We learned about a February 2 
meeting at the White House set up by Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger 
Altman to give them a heads up on a criminal referral. So those who 
suggest that the Banking Committee or any committee would not move 
ahead responsibly, I think, is wrong. The facts suggest otherwise.
  As I look at the difference between the new Dole-D'Amato resolution, 
and the one approved by the Senate last week, the differences appear 
minor. But there are some important questions, related to the 
Washington phase of the Whitewater investigation, that the Senate may 
pursue. They are matters that could not be brought up, or would be 
covered up under the majority leader's resolution. For example:
  Were records destroyed?
  On March 21, exactly 3 months ago, U.S. News & World Report quoted 
two Rose law firm employees as claiming to have shredded a box of 
documents marked with the late Vince Foster's initials, after Robert 
Fiske's appointment earlier this year. Under the Dole-D'Amato 
resolution, we can and should resolve that matter.
  Whitewater's tax returns:
  According to the Washington Post on January 21 of this year, it was 
reported that prior to Vince Foster's death, he oversaw the preparation 
of 3 years' worth of Whitewater tax returns that were filed late. It is 
a violation of the United States Code for a subordinate Federal 
employee to perform personal services when he or she is supposed to be 
doing his or her official duties. But that is not the real issue. The 
Clinton's have repeatedly said they were passive investors in 
Whitewater. Yet after the 1992 election, they took responsibility for 3 
years' worth of tax returns that were not filed. It is also against the 
law not to file tax returns. Those are important issues we can pursue 
under the Dole-D'Amato resolution, but not under the majority leader's 
resolution. We should be able to ask about those tax returns.
  The actions of Arkansas U.S. attorney Paula Casey:
  Paula Casey was a campaign volunteer for Bill Clinton. Her husband 
was appointed to a State job by then-Gov. Bill Clinton. She was 
confirmed by the Senate as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of 
Arkansas. Sometime after September 29 last year, U.S. Attorney Casey 
received a criminal referral from the RTC. On October 27, before the 
matter became public, she advised the RTC of her decision to forego an 
investigation due to ``insufficient information.''
  But just as soon as the criminal referral was reported in the media, 
she recused herself, just days later. That is a possible violation of 
Department of Justice rules governing recusals. That also smells of a 
coverup, and we need some answers. Under the Dole-D'Amato resolution--
but not under the majority leader's resolution--we can investigate that 
matter.
  And what about the unusual circumstances surrounding the subpoena 
issued by the Justice Department for the Clintons' Whitewater files?
  On the very day President Clinton Voluntarily offered to turn over 
this Whitewater records to the Justice Department, his personal 
attorney, David Kendall, negotiated a subpoena for those records to 
prevent their release under the Freedom of Information Act. That is 
highly unusual, if not unprecedented. The President has said that 
disclosure is the order of the day, but his lawyer negotiated with his 
own Justice Department for a carefully ordered subpoena to avoid the 
release of documents. That smells of a coverup, and we deserve some 
answers, and the documents should be made public.
  And speaking of answers, the Dole-D'Amato resolution, as I read it, 
would permit us to investigate statements made by the President, Mrs. 
Clinton, and White House spokespersons in their official capacity. We 
need to know whether White House officials have acted unethically or 
perhaps illegally in their public pronouncements. We need to know those 
answers.
  In less than 3 hours, we will bring this chapter of the Whitewater 
matter to a close. The choice is a simple one: Do we begin the process 
of conducting a real investigation into one phase of the Whitewater 
matter, or do we wash our hands of our constitutional responsibilities?
  If we fail to pass the Dole-D'Amato resolution, we will handcuff 
ourselves in violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of our March 
17 resolution, which called for hearings into all matters related to 
Whitewater. We will perform a disservice to ourselves, through the 
incredibly bad precedents we set, including giving the special counsel 
veto power over our own investigation. We will perform a disservice to 
the President and Mrs. Clinton, who need to get this matter behind 
them, and quickly. But most importantly, we do a disservice to the 
people who sent us here to do a job.
  We have a constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight over all 
matters related to the operations of Government. We have let them down. 
They deserve better, and it starts today with a ``yes'' vote on the 
Dole-D'Amato resolution.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Before the Senator begins, the Chair notes 
that the Republican leader has 6 minutes 45 seconds remaining for 
debate.
  The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak in reluctant support of 
the compromise amendment that is now being offered by the Republican 
leader and the distinguished Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato].
  I am supporting this amendment only because it provides a modest 
beginning for Senate hearings that will ultimately provide the public 
with some of the answers to questions concerning the Whitewater affair.
  I would have preferred a broader makeup of the committee as 
originally proposed by Senator D'Amato and Senator Dole. A committee 
that was made up primarily of the banking members, but also had members 
from other committees who would have special expertise. For example, on 
the matter of the Foster death that occurred on Park Service land, a 
member or two from the Energy Committee that has oversight would have 
been appropriate. Several months ago, I requested of the Park Service a 
copy of their initial investigation, and that has been unavailable. In 
any event, we are left with--as a consequence of decisions made by the 
majority leader--a take it or leave it proposal, which is better than 
nothing.
  Unfortunately, the problem we are facing, and the obligation we have 
to the American people, is that when we are through, we are not going 
to be able to answer the core questions surrounding Whitewater. The 
committee will not be able to determine why Madison failed; nor will it 
be able to determine if federally insured deposits at the failed 
Madison Guaranty Savings were diverted to Governor Clinton's 1984 
campaign; nor will it be able to determine whether federally insured 
Madison deposits were diverted to pay the Clintons' share of their 
Whitewater debts; nor will it be able to determine whether after 
Madison became insolvent, if favoritism, conflict of interest, and a 
false financial audit presented to State regulators by the Rose law 
firm permitted Madison to remain open.
  These questions will not be answered for the simple reasons that our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not permit a full-blown 
investigation this year. It appears they are quite satisfied to 
stonewall on these issues for as long as possible in the hope that they 
can make it through the midterm elections without having to deal with 
damage-control related to Whitewater.
  However, this strategy of delay, in my opinion, is sure to backfire. 
It guarantees that the Clinton administration will be mired in 
Whitewater politics in 1995 and possibly in 1996. It may be good short-
term politics to delay Whitewater hearings, but in the long term, it is 
likely to cause even more serious problems for the administration.
  Mr. President, Democratic stonewalling on Whitewater will not make 
the issue go away. Republicans may have lost 10 party line votes last 
week on broadening the scope of Whitewater hearings, but the 
persistence of the Democratic intransigence on this matter is beginning 
to be noted by the press.
  We all read last Friday's New York Times, and the lead editorial, 
entitled ``Running for Cover on Whitewater,'' put the issue of 
Whitewater hearings in blunt perspective when it stated in its opening 
sentence, ``Senate Democrats are rushing toward a partisan cover-up of 
the Whitewater affair.''
  This is the same New York Times that endorsed President Clinton in 
1992 and generally has been sympathetic to elected officials in the 
Democratic Party.
  Would congressional hearings interfere with Special Counsel Fiske's 
investigation? As I have stated numerous times on the floor of the 
Senate, we have held hearings simultaneously with independent counsels 
in the cases involving Anne Burford and the EPA Superfund, Michael 
Deaver and Iran Contra, and BNL Bank, and BCCI.
  As the Times noted in its editorial:

       It is hard to see how a broad congressional inquiry could 
     seriously hinder [Mr. Fiske]. It might even help; past 
     congressional hearings have made the prosecutor's case even 
     stronger.

  Finally, I note what the Times had to say about the piecemeal, drag-
out approach to hearings that the Democratic majority repeatedly 
supported:

       This path does not serve the public or the President. It 
     leaves unanswered questions that voters deserve to have 
     answered. It prolongs the uncertainty that has damaged this 
     Presidency from day one of the Whitewater affair and hands 
     the GOP a new--and legitimate--cover-up issue.

  Mr. President, I believe that a year from now the Democrats are going 
to regret that they have taken this staggered approach to the hearings. 
As I have said for months, it would be far better for the President and 
the public to find out the facts associated with Whitewater as soon as 
possible. We have to get this matter behind us. Further delay serves no 
one, least of all the President of the United States.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the June 17 New York 
Times editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, June 17, 1994]

                    Running for Cover on Whitewater

       Senate Democrats are rushing toward a partisan cover-up of 
     the Whitewater affair. They have voted to hold narrowly 
     circumscribed hearings in the Senate Banking Committee, which 
     they dominate. They are therefore likely to prolong the agony 
     of the President they hope to protect.
       By a 56-to-43 vote, the Senate decided to limit hearings 
     next month to three elements of the case. One is the U.S. 
     Park Police's investigation into the death of Vincent Foster, 
     Jr., the Deputy White House Counsel. Two, the way in which 
     members of the White House staff disposed of Mr. Foster's 
     Whitewater files. Three, whether the White House officials 
     tried to manipulate Treasury Department investigations into 
     Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan.
       This agenda focuses only on White House behavior after Bill 
     Clinton became President and excludes far more important 
     questions about what happened in Arkansas before he and Mrs. 
     Clinton reached the White House.
       To recapitulate: Did James McDougal, a Clinton crony who 
     headed Madison, receive favorable treatment from a bank 
     regulator appointed by then-Gov. Bill Clinton? Were Madison 
     funds used to pay off Mr. Clinton's 1984 campaign debt? Were 
     funds in Madison accounts diverted to the Whitewater 
     Development Company? How much did the Clintons pay for their 
     half-share of Whitewater? Did they receive financial benefits 
     that they should have reported as taxable income?
       In short, the Democrats have chosen to ignore precisely 
     those dealings that have raised suspicions that the Clintons 
     may have profited from favors dispensed by people who had 
     something to gain from them. They have also shown no interest 
     in Mrs. Clinton's commodities trading, or the possibility 
     that an artful broker may have given her favorable treatment. 
     The special counsel investigating Whitewater, Robert Fiske, 
     has likewise shown little interest in this issue.
       The Democrats say their timid agenda results from a desire 
     not to undermine Mr. Fiske's inquiries. They also promise to 
     get to the Arkansas questions next year--safely after the 
     midterm elections. In March, this page argued against a 
     partisan circus and agreed that hearings should be delayed 
     until Mr. Fiske got his feet on the ground. But we also said 
     the delay should be measured in weeks, not months. Mr. Fiske 
     has now had time to learn the basics of the case, both in 
     Washington and Arkansas; it is hard to see how a broad 
     Congressional inquiry could seriously hinder him. It might 
     even help; past Congressional hearings have made the 
     prosecutor's case even stronger.
       We also noted that Mr. Fiske could not expect Congress to 
     abdicate its oversight responsibilities. The banking 
     committees have a legitimate interest in the behavior of 
     Federal bank regulators and the Arkansas bank regulators in 
     regard to Madison and its dubious lending practices.
       House Democrats are expected to follow the Senate's narrow 
     path. This path does not serve the public or the President. 
     It leaves unanswered questions that voters deserve to have 
     answered. It prolongs the uncertainty that has damaged this 
     Presidency from day one of the Whitewater affair and hands 
     the G.O.P. a new--and legitimate--cover-up issue.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I will ask that when we go into a quorum 
call, that we not charge the time equally. We have no time. I ask that 
I be permitted to save our 1 minute 30 seconds until the last 10 
minutes before we vote, and that any quorum call at the time be charged 
against Senator Mitchell's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I do not 
understand why the quorum call should be charged against Senator 
Mitchell's time. The Republicans have been on the floor all morning 
speaking on this, and if they want to charge the time equally----
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I only wanted to save the remaining 1 
minute 30 seconds. The impact of it is to say that you will permit me 
to keep my 1 minute 30 seconds down to the last 10 minutes; that is 
why. Senator Mitchell was not here. I would have preferred that he or 
other Democrats be on the floor, but I understand there is pressing 
business. I am only trying to preserve the 1 minute 30 seconds that I 
have so I might speak before we conclude at 1 o'clock. Otherwise, as 
soon as a quorum call goes in, if the time is charged equally, I will 
have no time remaining.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, the majority has no hesitation in allowing 
Senator D'Amato from New York to reserve 1 minute 30 seconds to close. 
But we want the Senator to know and the Senate to know that we do have 
a time certain to vote on this particular matter.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from New York is 
reserved.
  Mr. PRYOR. 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. PELL. 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. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
proceed as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.

                          ____________________