[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 Senate continued with the consideration of the resolution.
  Mr. PELL. 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. PRYOR. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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. PRYOR. Mr. President, as we return now to the so-called 
Whitewater debate on the floor of the Senate, I would like, if I might, 
Mr. President, for a few moments to outline basically where we have 
been in this debate, where we are now, and, hopefully, where we intend 
to go.
  First, I would like to state that it appears that our colleagues, for 
one reason or another, have some sort of fixation attached to the issue 
of the so-called Whitewater affair. This fixation is demonstrated in 
the simple fact that the U.S. Senate has been in session 73 days this 
year and that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have taken 
to the floor of the U.S. Senate and they have made some 62 speeches, 62 
appearances, taking up the time of the U.S. Senate to basically forge a 
political issue and to promote a political goal.
  Mr. President, this debate today is certainly not and should not be 
couched in what would be the limitations or the restrictions of a 
hearing relative to the Whitewater affair. At least that should be very 
clear in all of our minds by now. The Whitewater issue, Mr. President, 
has been voted on on nine separate occasions, including language which 
is going to provide for the avenue for additional hearings into 
additional matters that relate to the Whitewater issue. On many 
occasions on the floor of the U.S. Senate, the distinguished majority 
leader has stated over and over and over again that, one, we will meet 
our constitutional obligation as a Senate to get to the bottom of this 
issue; two, that we will at all times adhere to the original agreement 
adopted by a vote of 98 to nothing on March 17; and that we will 
continue to follow the advice and the admonition of Mr. Robert Fiske, 
the special counsel or the special investigator into the Whitewater 
matter. And that admonition, Mr. President, is something we know. It is 
something our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle know. That 
admonition is very simply not to begin an investigation in Congress 
until phase I of the Fiske investigation has been concluded.

  It seems that we would learn from past mistakes of the legislative 
branch being too eager to move into areas while another investigation 
is being held into a similar matter. We should have learned that lesson 
from the Iran-Contra matter. I would like to quote from an editorial, 
Sunday, June 19, 1994, from the Washington Post. I will only quote the 
last two paragraphs from this particular editorial.

       While the proposed hearings will cover events in the 
     Clinton Presidency, the Senate majority leader has given 
     assurances of additional hearings on issues that cover the 
     Clintons' political and business lives before the White 
     House. It is no abdication of Congress' oversight 
     responsibility to be mindful of the pitfalls of simultaneous 
     probes.

  The final paragraph from the editorial:

       Congress ought to avoid hearings that might interfere with 
     the prosecutorial efforts to compile admissible evidence 
     leading to convictions. Iran-Contra taught that lesson. Why 
     the rush? The Clintons aren't going anywhere. Senate 
     Democrats should hold firm.

  Once again, on nine occasions this body has voted and stated that we 
will hold additional hearings at the appropriate time relating to any 
and all issues in the Whitewater matter. Also, I think it should be 
noted at this particular time that the special counsel, Mr. Fiske, in 
writing to the Senate Banking Committee on March 7, requested that:

       [The] committee not conduct any hearings in the areas 
     covered by the grand jury's ongoing investigation, both in 
     order to avoid compromising that investigation and in order 
     to further the public interest in preserving fairness, 
     thoroughness, confidentiality of the grand jury process.

  Mr. President, I think that the resolution that has been proposed by 
the majority leader is not only a proposal that deals in good faith, I 
think it deals in good common sense. It will protect the testimony of 
those individuals who might or might not be called before a grand jury. 
It also provides for an effort, a concentrated effort, to find every 
possible and conceivable fact and put out in the open those facts that 
might relate to the Whitewater issue.
  Once again, our majority leader has repeatedly emphasized in his 
public and private statements that he and the Senate are and have been 
firmly committed to meeting the constitutional obligation to conduct 
oversight and committed to full and complete public hearings.
  Also, I do think--without questioning the motivation behind any of 
the language as proposed by our Republican friends on the other side of 
the aisle--I do think what would be happening, should we adopt the 
resolution offered by the Senator from New York and the Senator from 
Kansas, the minority leader, is without question this would lead this 
body and the Senate Banking Committee off on a fishing expedition; a 
fishing expedition into any activity by any person which is illegal, 
improper, unauthorized or unethical, which is related to the Whitewater 
matters and occurred after January 20, 1994.
  The inclusion of the words ``improper'' and ``unauthorized acts,'' is 
a particularly broad and vague description of what would be the 
authority of the particular committee, the Banking Committee in this 
instance, in dealing with this issue. I think this language might well 
expand--broaden the scope of these hearings into matters potentially 
under investigation as part of the ongoing inquiry by the special 
counsel in Little Rock and elsewhere. On the other hand, the majority 
leader's resolution provides for the hearings to conclude and for a 
report to be made to the Senate by the end of this session of Congress. 
The Republican resolution is open-ended. There is no requirement for 
the committee to complete its work on any particular date. It could go 
next year, the following year, the year after that, and into the next 
century, theoretically, if the Republican resolution were to be 
adopted.
  I also believe that we are facing an issue before the Senate at this 
time where we must step back and once again look at what has really 
happened, and not fall victim to some of the hyped-up allegations that 
we are hearing from the other side of the aisle. Many times on the 
floor of this body in the last several weeks we have heard the word 
``coverup.'' We have heard the words, ``political crony.'' We have 
heard the question, ``What do they have to hide?'' The best of all I 
think, Mr. President, is when one of our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle have indicated that the real reason for this issue 
surfacing on the floor of the Senate at this time is to come to the aid 
of the President, to try to help the President through this particular 
issue--so he can have a successful administration, which I suppose is 
the inference we would draw.
  I would like to address that for just a moment. I would like to state 
this President, I think--and I totally believe the American people 
feel--has forcefully addressed the questions which have arisen in the 
so-called Whitewater issue. The President of the United States has 
faced questions from the media on many occasions, including a major 
press conference that the President held just on the issue of 
Whitewater. All of us remember that press conference. In fact, I found 
there were very few questions posed by the media during that particular 
hour in that historic press conference that really went to the heart of 
what Whitewater was all about. I thought the President handled himself 
well and, in fact, I think the media description of the President's 
reaction to the questions was very, very fair indeed. He reassured the 
American people. He has taken the necessary steps to assure there will 
not even be an appearance of interference that might be wrong in the 
investigation by anyone in the White House.
  The First Lady has also addressed this matter in an unprecedented and 
extensive major press conference back, I believe, during the month of 
May, when Mrs. Clinton appeared before a national press audience and 
was interrogated about her role or alleged role in the Whitewater 
events. I strongly feel she answered those questions directly and 
honestly while looking us and the camera right in the eyes. Mrs. 
Clinton answered those questions proposed recently by special counsel 
Robert Fiske, under oath, for over an hour. This was in an interview in 
the White House.
  The President and Mrs. Clinton have now appeared before Mr. Fiske, 
and we believe strongly on this side of the aisle that this part of the 
investigation should not be damaged, it should not be compromised by 
any action that the U.S. Senate might take. Let us all be assured that 
the investigation by the special counsel is continuing.
  It is an ongoing investigation. It is an ongoing investigation where 
we are about to see, if I am not mistaken, the conclusion of phase I of 
the investigation. Therefore, under the agreement that we have with Mr. 
Fiske, it will soon be time for us in the legislative branch to look 
into the facts in phase I of this particular matter.
  Let us remind our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the 
special counsel in this case is a Republican. He is not a Democrat. 
This is a serious matter and Mr. Fiske is a serious man. Mr. Fiske is a 
man of unquestioned ability as a prosecutor, as an attorney. Once 
again, he is a Republican. In fact, when his appointment was made, our 
friend, the Senator from New York, was the very first Senator who came 
forward to express his unqualified support for this appointment. 
Senator D'Amato said that ``He''--Mr. Fiske--``is a man of 
uncompromising integrity and he will unearth the truth for the American 
people.''
  These are the words of the Senator from New York. Mr. President, I 
will only state as a follow-on that we need to allow Robert Fiske, the 
special counsel, to continue to do that job. Many of the same 
individuals, many of the same Republican Senators on this side of the 
aisle who called for a special counsel shifted their partisan gears as 
soon as he was named and began to call for immediate congressional 
hearings simultaneous to the investigation that was being conducted by 
Mr. Fiske even at that particular moment.
  Even in the face of that very counsel's opposition to any 
simultaneous Whitewater hearings, Republicans continued to come to the 
floor of the Senate--in fact, on 62 occasions--on 62 occasions, in 62 
speeches, they have come to the floor and said, ``Oh, we have to have 
full-fledged immediate hearings.'' It does not matter that the special 
counsel is in the process of conducting a hearing. It does not matter 
that what the Senate might do could actually compromise the evidence, 
and the statements and the information that are being taken at this 
point and in this particular phase, by Mr. Fiske.
  Even in the face of the counsel's opposition to any hearings that go 
beyond the scope of what we have agreed to on March 17, our Republican 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, on 62 occasions, I remind 
the Presiding Officer and our colleagues, continue to demand that the 
Congress go forward in a way that risks damage to the investigation 
which the special counsel has begun.
  There is another little thing that is happening over here, and I 
think I ought to make note of it. I am sorry that my friend, Senator 
Nickles from Oklahoma, is no longer on the floor. Every few hours or 
so, there seems to be a pattern that has developed, a pattern of 
throwing someone's name out. Maybe just a little raw meat from time to 
time they throw out on the floor and indicate maybe that someone has 
done something wrong.
  We can say anything on the floor of this Senate about anyone. We are 
protected. We have immunity. Now, if we go outside of this Chamber, if 
we go out in front of this Capitol, on the steps of this Capitol in the 
public forum, then we can be held accountable. We can be held 
accountable as individuals. No longer are we given the protective cloak 
of ``speech and debate'' that we have while we are in the so-called 
sanctity of the Chamber of the U.S. Senate.
  Senator Nickles a while ago just threw out the name of Paula Casey, 
U.S. attorney in Little Rock. ``Maybe we better look at Paula Casey, 
the U.S. attorney down there in Little Rock. Let's see if she didn't do 
something wrong in the handling of this particular matter,'' he said.
  Our friend from North Carolina, Senator Faircloth, last week got up 
on the floor and started castigating a fine person, a fine lawyer, one 
who has done her duty as a public official, as a public servant in the 
State of Arkansas, Beverly Bassett Schaffer, who is known throughout 
our State as one of the most prominent female lawyers in our State; in 
fact, one of the most prominent lawyers in our State. Always throwing 
someone's name out to be used as a matter of public speculation in the 
sense that perhaps they have done something wrong, maybe we ought to 
look at them.
  But the bottom line, Mr. President, in this debate is that in the 
Republican resolution there would be no breaks; there would be no 
restrictions; the sky would be the limit; there would be no reporting 
date, no date to conclude the hearings, no time certain for a report to 
the U.S. Senate on the findings--a total open-ended proposition as 
offered by the Senator from New York and his colleagues on the floor of 
the Senate.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, will----
  Mr. PRYOR. I will not yield at this time. The Senator from New York, 
by the way----
  Mr. D'AMATO. I was just wondering if my distinguished colleague will 
yield for a question on that point.
  Mr. PRYOR. I am going to conclude my remarks first.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly.
  Mr. PRYOR. I am going to conclude my remarks, but I want to first 
note that the Senator from New York has already spoken 19 times on 
Whitewater, on the issue.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I just was wondering if the Senator would yield for a 
question at some point.
  Mr. PRYOR. The Senator from New York can ask the Senator from 
Arkansas a question when the Senator from Arkansas finishes his 
statement.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly.
  Mr. PRYOR. I, frankly, am about through with my statement, Mr. 
President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has the floor.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I have heard a lot of times on the floor 
also about, ``Well, here's what we did in Watergate; we had a broad 
umbrella of issues that we could look into.'' Then we hear a lot 
about--from this side of the aisle--what we did in the Iran-Contra 
hearings.
  Once again, a huge umbrella of what we could look at. But, Mr. 
President, each of those instances relative to Watergate, relative to 
Iran-Contra, were issues that impacted and related directly to the 
issue of national security--national security.
  This issue of Whitewater is not an issue of national security, to the 
best of our knowledge. No one has ever even brought up that it should 
be looked upon in the same vein or with the same degree of concern that 
we all had in years past with Iran-Contra and also with Watergate.
  Mr. President, this afternoon should conclude what we must do, once 
again, to exercise our obligation, to recognize that obligation. The 
majority leader certainly on this side has stated that we recognize 
that obligation and that we have to deal with it, and we are going to 
deal with it. We have proposed the way to deal with it. We have 
proposed the timing of how it should be dealt with, and we think that 
timing, Mr. President, represents a good approach, a sound approach, 
and an approach that the American people will accept.
  I think the Senator from New York had a question. I will be glad to 
yield for a question.
  (Mrs. MURRAY assumed the chair.)
  Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly. I thank my colleague for that. I do not 
question the sincerity of my colleague's arguments. We are saying that 
when Mr. Fiske has completed the Washington phase of his investigation, 
we can then go forward in those matters covered. Then why would we not 
permit the committee, whichever committee is set up to hold these 
hearings, to examine whether or not the Office of Thrift Supervision--
OTS--has had anyone interfere or attempt to interfere with a possible 
investigation of Madison? And we are talking about after January 20, 
1994. So we are not talking about going into matters prior to the 
administration taking office. But the question is whether or not there 
was any attempt by anyone from Treasury that attempted to preclude Mr. 
McCormally from going forward. I do not know whether this was the case, 
because Mr. Fiechter wrote to me and said that he certainly never met 
with Mr. McCormally. Would we not be interested in ascertaining this 
information?

  The leader's resolution or amendment does not give us the ability to 
examine it. Does the Senator think that that would be within our scope?
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I am very glad that the Senator from New 
York has posed that question, and I would answer that with two quick 
points.
  One, Mr. Fiske has not indicated that those issues raised by the 
Senator from New York are issues that he will be looking at in the 
first phase of his investigation. Therefore, for us to move forward 
with an investigation into the matter that the Senator from New York 
has raised on that subject I think could possibly impede the 
investigation being conducted by Mr. Fiske and ultimately perhaps by 
the grand jury.
  Second, I might say, Madam President, in response to the Senator from 
New York, what we are faced with here is not a question of limiting an 
investigation, as I have stated in my remarks and as the majority 
leader has stated in his remarks and as we have voted on eight or nine 
times, I think it is eight times by the majority of the Senate. We are 
not limiting this debate. We are only limiting this phase of the 
debate.
  Mr. D'AMATO. To the Washington aspect.
  Mr. PRYOR. That is correct. And this is a proper thing to do at this 
particular time.
  Mr. D'AMATO. So my question is----
  Mr. PRYOR. Acceding to the request of the special counsel, Mr. Fiske.
  Mr. D'AMATO. So my question is, if Mr. Fiske has no objection and has 
covered OTS in his Washington scope--I have not been told that he has 
not covered it--then would not the OTS properly fall within the realm 
of this inquiry. These matters have occurred subsequent to the 
President taking office, should that not be a legitimate matter of 
inquiry?
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, in response to the Senator from New York, 
let us remember that the majority leader's proposal has been tailored 
to accommodate what Mr. Fiske has stated that he would be investigating 
at a particular time.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Yes.
  Mr. PRYOR. In the March 17 resolution so adopted by 98 of our 
colleagues, including the Senator from New York and the Senator from 
Arkansas, we all agreed that the scope of this investigation could be 
broadened, and perhaps by implication would be broadened, at the 
appropriate time. It is a matter of when, I say to my friend from New 
York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I understand that, and that is what brings about some 
concern. Because it would seem to me to be almost evident on its face 
that if Mr. Fiske has completed that area of his investigation of the 
so-called Washington-side, including whether or not Treasury people 
have attempted to impact OTS in its decision, then that would be a 
matter that we should be able to look into. That is the Senator's 
point. I hope the Senator would agree with me on that.
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I think it is a valid issue that the 
Senator has raised. But I think that question is going to have to be 
answered, posed, and disposed of at another time.
  Mr. D'AMATO. As a matter of fact, I have already instructed staff to 
write a letter to Mr. Fiske inquiring of him whether or not he has 
pursued the matter of OTS and whether or not there was any influence 
exerted. He will make his response, and if his response is that they 
hope to have that matter concluded in the initial investigation, then 
we could, as a matter of comity and fairness, at least examine that 
issue.
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I am confused because right after Mr. 
Fiske was appointed to this position, it was the Senator from New York, 
the junior Senator from New York, who applauded the choice--I just put 
his statement in the Record. He stated he was a very fine appointment, 
and he proclaimed also that this is a man who is going to get to the 
bottom of this matter, and I believe that. I do not know that we ought 
to start telling Mr. Fiske what to investigate right now and what not 
to investigate.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I do not question the statement I made. I stand by it. I 
still think he is a man of great integrity and ability. That is not the 
question.
  The question is, if he has concluded the Washington part of his 
investigation and has no reluctance to us going forward--and OTS has 
been part of it--then should we not be able to make inquiry as it 
relates to OTS? It seems to me that that would then be the question. We 
should have the ability to go forward.
  I cannot tell Senators that I know that Mr. Fiske has covered OTS. I 
do not know that. I have not posed the question to Mr. Fiske. But I 
intend to pose that question to him. Certainly I think it is not 
inappropriate to do so. I will send a copy of that letter to the 
chairman of the committee.
  I am wondering if my good friend knows that in the book ``Men of 
Zeal,'' which is coauthored by the majority leader and Senator Cohen, 
as it relates to deadlines, the leader said--let me quote if I might. 
It is very short. It is written: ``Fourth, setting fixed deadlines for 
the completion of congressional investigations should be avoided.''
  He goes on to say: ``But such decisions are often dictated by 
political circumstances and need to avoid the appearance of 
partisanship.''
  He concludes by saying: ``We hope that in future cases such an 
artificial restraint on the pursuit of facts will not be necessary.''
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I was not aware that Senator Mitchell and 
Senator Cohen stated anything about deadlines. I am sorry I did not. I 
do not know how it relates to this particular issue. But I will 
conclude, and I am going to yield the floor because my friend from 
Kentucky wants to make a statement, Senator Ford, but I will just yield 
by saying that we spent millions upon millions of dollars in the Iran-
Contra investigation. And I think it went on for how many years--2, 3, 
4 years? We just felt that there had to be a cutoff point where this 
particular committee would conclude something. And if it did not 
conclude anything, then it could write the report that it was 
inconclusive, but at least force the body to give us a report in the 
Senate, account for the money expended, give us the facts as they saw 
them, and put the issue to rest.
  Mr. President, with that, speaking of putting this issue to rest, I 
am going to take a rest and I am going to yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader controls 48 minutes 30 
seconds.
  Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield me 10 minutes?
  Mr. PRYOR. I will be glad to yield 10 minutes. In fact, if I might, 
Madam President, with the consent of the Senator from Kentucky, I will 
just yield the floor to him. I am not controlling time. And I do think 
Senator Mitchell certainly wants to reserve some time. The Senator from 
Kentucky can take all the time he so desires.
  Mr. FORD. Thanks very much. I will be sure the majority leader has 
some time left because I can hardly wait.
  Madam President, let me begin my remarks this morning by reading a 
portion of the speech radio personality Garrison Keillor gave to the 
National Press Club back in April when the Whitewater frenzy was at its 
peak. He said, and I quote:

       The Whitewater story has run for months on the power of 
     suggestion. With any shaggy-dog story like this one, whose 
     point is its pointlessness, people became fascinated by the 
     fact that they are still standing and listening to what 
     apparently is a long, winding circumstantial joke that the 
     teller keeps complicating by tossing in new unrelated 
     elements--things we don't know that may be true, and, if they 
     are, then other things that may be true.
       * * * And now the story dwindles to a few scraps--the 
     possibility of inconsistencies in statements about things 
     that nobody ever suggested were wrong to begin with. The 
     American people are setting on the bleachers waiting for the 
     elephant to come out, and all we see are the guys selling 
     cotton candy.

  Keillor is right. There is no elephant. There is only the circus 
atmosphere. There is only carnival barkers promising all sorts of 
outlandish exhibits inside their tents.
  But you and I know the truth usually has little resemblance to the 
barker's hype.
  Despite the fact that we do not have much more than speculation and 
innuendo, Democrats and Republicans agreed back in March on a process 
to provide a fair and dignified--I want to underscore ``dignified''--
congressional forum to examine the facts.
  At that time, Democrats and Republicans voted unanimously for 
hearings structured and sequenced in such a manner that in the judgment 
of leaders they would not interfere with the ongoing investigation of 
Special Counsel Robert B. Fiske, Jr. I do not see how anything could be 
any clearer than that.
  Now the Republicans are saying that is not good enough--that a 98-0 
vote is irrelevant.
  But I guess none of us should be too surprised by this. Back in early 
January, the Republicans were demanding that a special counsel be 
brought in. On January 12, the President expressed his agreement with 
the need for a special counsel to dispel any question of impropriety. 
Before the sunset, the Republicans were holding a press conference 
demanding the creation of a Senate Select Committee. They have been 
drawing and redrawing lines in the sand ever since.
  Despite the fact that we have an independent counsel already using 
scarce taxpayer dollars to investigate every aspect of this matter, 
this body decided to hold a congressional hearing. Yes. It was a 
compromise. But it was a necessary compromise that would not jeopardize 
the efforts of the special counsel--special counsel, I might add, who 
is a lifelong Republican--we have heard that--and whose appointment was 
hailed by the Republican Members of this body. It could not have been 
any better.
  As everyone here knows, Special Counsel Fiske requested, both in 
writing and in meetings with Senators, that the Senate not conduct 
hearings which could interfere with his investigation. He specifically 
asked that since his investigation is being conducted in two phases, 
the Senate's hearings be conducted in two phases as well.
  These are not unreasonable requests, Madam President. These are not 
requests that call on the Senate to abdicate its constitutional 
responsibilities.
  These requests acknowledge certain Members who do not believe one 
independent investigation is enough. But they also acknowledge that 
congressional hearings have the potential to jeopardize the special 
counsel's efforts.
  These are not unreasonable requests. But do not take my word for it. 
Trust the word of a fellow Republican.
  According to an April 16 Boston Globe editorial, Representative Jim 
Leach, the ranking member on the House Banking Committee, who they 
describe as the ``most credible critic'' on Whitewater, ``wants 
hearings delayed until the special counsel finishes inquiries this 
summer.''
  Something does not ring just right here when we find so much furor 
here. But let me read that statement again.
  According to the April 16 Boston Globe editorial, Representative Jim 
Leach, the ranking member of the House Banking Committee, who they 
describe as the ``most credible critic'' on Whitewater, ``wants 
hearings delayed until the special counsel finishes inquiries this 
summer.''
  Somehow or another, the House, both Democrats and Republicans, came 
together on basically the same position that majority leader Mitchell 
has proposed. They did not have the rancor. They did not have the 
speeches. They say, well, the Democrats control everything over there. 
Well, if they control what Bob Michel says and does, that is unusual. I 
guarantee you they do not control the Congressman from Georgia, 
Congressman Gingrich, and what he says. You just cannot say that they 
are two controlled individuals by Democrats. They came together in a 
public statement, and they are proceeding in the proper manner.
  Perhaps what Representative Jim Leach said is why House Republicans 
and Democrats agreed to the hearings essentially identical to the 
format outlined by our majority leader, Senator Mitchell; limited to 
three areas, and conducted by the House Banking Committee.
  The editorial goes on to say that ``even Leach acknowledges that 
Republicans should not let Whitewater impede legislation on health 
care, welfare, and crime.''
  And therein lies the true issue today, Madam President. If we learned 
one thing from the elections of 1992, it was that the American people 
are tired of gridlock and inefficiency in Congress. They wanted 
representatives who were willing to tackle crime, to tackle health 
care, to tackle welfare reform.
  How do we demonstrate this? By barely passing a bipartisan aviation 
bill, because Senators trying to score political points effectively 
ground the business of this Chamber to a halt.
  Yes. This is about character, Madam President. It is about having the 
character to do the people's business.
  I do not know a better measure of strong character than a President 
willing to tackle issues like health care, crime, and welfare. He took 
on these issues knowing full well what the odds were for success.
  These last 2 weeks the Senate has countered that demonstration of 
character and courage with gridlock and political posturing.
  Perhaps the editorial page of the Los Angeles Times put it best when 
they said:
       ``Some Republican leaders may want a crippled President, 
     but ordinary American citizens do not, rather many appear to 
     be growing weary of the recurring cycle of allegation, cover, 
     hearings, and investigations that seem to sap so much of our 
     national vitality.
  Madam President, if the Senate really wants a circus, we have all of 
the ingredients right here, including the clowns. But I do not think 
that is what we really want. Instead, let us show the American public 
that they did not make a mistake in sending us here and that we have 
the strength of character it takes to tackle issues like crime, health 
care, and welfare reform. That is what the people want us to be doing, 
that is what the people expect us to do, and that is the character that 
this body ought to express.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Ohio?
  Mr. FORD. How much time does the Senator need?
  Mr. METZENBAUM. I need 10 minutes.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, under the authority given me, I yield 10 
minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I have been around here about 19 
years, and, frankly, I am disturbed at the tenor and tone of this 
debate. I think it is an embarrassment to the U.S. Senate that we are 
playing this game over and over and over again on the so-called 
Whitewater issue.
  We have resolved that issue. There will be hearings, there will be an 
investigation, and there will be additional hearings, if they are 
necessary, and that is all provided for. But instead, some on the 
opposite side of the aisle think there is great political mileage in 
this.
  This country really does not support this. Maybe Rush Limbaugh and 
some of those right-wing commentators support it. But the reality is 
that the American people are concerned that we are to do something 
about health care in this country; we are to do something about welfare 
reform; we are to concern ourselves about some of the problems 
overseas. And this whole to-do about Whitewater has been up and down 
and backwards and forwards in the Senate. The Senate has passed 
legislation on it. But notwithstanding that, Members on the other side 
of the aisle have spoken on this subject 63 times--63 times--and I say 
it was for no other purpose than attempting to get some publicity out 
of it, not for any meaningful purpose.
  The distinguished Senator from New York has had three speeches on 
crime and 19 speeches on Whitewater. I think that, if he reversed that, 
that is what the American people are concerned about--resolving the 
problems of crime in this country--and they are less concerned about 
the Whitewater investigation, which is in the hands of an independent 
counsel and on which there is going to be hearings in the U.S. Senate, 
as well as in the House of Representatives.
  The distinguished minority leader has had 8 speeches on crime and 10 
speeches on Whitewater. What are the concerns of those of my fellow 
Senators on the opposite side of the aisle? Do they not understand that 
this is not what the American people sent us here to deliberate about? 
They sent us here to solve the problems of this country, to solve the 
problems of seeing to it that every American has a chance for decent 
health care, to solve the problems of seeing to it that every American 
has a chance for a job. But the fact is that there are millions of 
Americans that do not have jobs, and we are working on discussing 
Whitewater--we are not working on it, we are discussing it, talking and 
talking and talking. It demeans the Senate. It is a reflection upon the 
character of this body to try to exploit this particular issue.
  Madam President, I say that this is not the way the U.S. Senate ought 
to conduct its business. We have so many important pieces of 
legislation. We go into the crime bill conference this afternoon, and 
it is a very controversial measure. We are moving onto the whole 
question of striker replacement, where workers throughout the country, 
even as we meet today, are going on strike and employers are bringing 
in replacements--contrary to that which they have done over the past 50 
years--to take their jobs because they had the audacity to strike. We 
have important legislation to deal with. We have health care 
legislation to deal with. We have education legislation to deal with.
  But what is the Senate tied up with? The Senate is tied up with my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle being anxious to come to the 
floor and beat this particular issue, beat it, beat it, and beat it--
the Whitewater issue--hoping they are going to somehow embarrass the 
President of the United States. Ask the American people about how many 
are concerned about Whitewater, and it will be a very insignificant 
amount. Ask them how many are concerned about solving the problems of 
crime. There will be a much larger percentage. Ask them about solving 
the health care problems of this country and you will find a large 
percentage. Ask them how many of them are concerned about employment in 
this country, and you will see a large percentage.
  Nobody is doing anything on the other side of the aisle that I can 
see about temporary workers taking over jobs of Americans in this 
country. The largest single employer in this country, as we meet here 
today--that being Manpower, Inc.--are supplying temporary workers that 
are called upon to do their jobs without any protection as far as 
health care is concerned, without protection as far as medical leave or 
family leave, without any other protection of their job; they are 
called in for a few hours to do their job, and not a person on the 
other side of the aisle speaks up on that.
  I think it is time for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
to take stock of themselves. You are a very decent group of people. 
Many of you are very able legislators. But the fact is that we are 
wasting the time of the U.S. Senate in further debating the issue of 
Whitewater when there is an independent counsel working on the matter, 
when the House is moving forward on hearings, where the Senate is 
prepared to move forward on hearings. But, no, they want to beat this 
same dead horse over and over again. It is time to bring it to a halt. 
It reflects upon those leading the debate, and it reflects upon all of 
those who are on the other side of the aisle supporting the debate.
  On each vote taken so far in order to move forward, offered by the 
majority leader of the Senate, the Members on the other side voted en 
bloc not to permit us to go forward with our regular business. We are 
wasting too much time. It does not reflect well on us. It does not 
reflect well on the Senate. It does not reflect well upon our 
constitutional processes. I say it is time for a halt. Stand up and be 
counted on some important legislation instead of wasting further time 
on the floor of the U.S. Senate trying to make something out of an 
issue that is a whole lot of nothing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
South Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, let me commend the distinguished 
Senator from Ohio for a very compelling statement.
  Madam President, I hope this will be the last day we debate this 
issue. I hope we can resolve it once and for all and get on with it. As 
the distinguished Senator from Ohio said, this Senate has an incredibly 
large agenda that we have to address, and time is wasting. The pages of 
the calendar are turning, and we do not have the ability or the luxury 
to continue day after day, week after week, to address a resolution 
that I think should have been resolved a long time ago. In fact, we 
have been doing this since last March. The resolution offered then by 
the majority leader enjoyed the bipartisan, unanimous support of this 
body.
  On March 17, by a vote of 98 to 0, we passed a resolution that made 
it very clear what the intent of this body ought to be:

       The hearings should be structured and sequenced in such a 
     manner that, in the judgment of the leaders, those hearings 
     would not interfere with the ongoing investigation of Special 
     Counsel Robert B. Fiske, Jr.

  That is what the resolution said. We were right then, and we are 
right today. We must set out in an effort, as the majority leader has 
indicated, to do what is called for in this resolution.
  The resolution that we are voting on today is identical to what the 
Senate approved last week, as the leader has indicated. Under its 
provisions, hearings will commence on the first phase of the Whitewater 
matter in the Banking Committee approximately 30 days after the special 
counsel indicates that such hearings would not interfere with his 
investigation or by July 29, whichever is earlier.
  In fact, there is a date certain by which this body will act on an 
investigation. There is a date certain for all Members, for all of 
America to understand that the investigation will commence and 
information can begin to be acquired.
  The majority leader has repeatedly emphasized in his public and 
private statements that he and the Senate are firmly committed to 
meeting the constitutional obligation to conduct the oversight 
responsibly as required under this resolution and committed to the full 
and complete hearings that this resolution entails.
  We are determined to conduct that oversight in an appropriate way 
which will avoid interfering with the investigation that is now being 
conducted by the special counsel.
  Democratic and Republican leaders in the House agreed on June 15 to 
do exactly what this resolution requires, to hold oversight hearings in 
the House Banking Committee and to accommodate the concerns of the 
special counsel. This is essentially identical to the leader's 
proposal.
  The leader's resolution authorizes additional hearings to be held 
into the remaining matters in accordance with the Senate's unanimous 
vote on March 17.
  The Republican resolution, I might emphasize, makes no such 
commitment to additional hearings. I do not know why they chose not to 
elaborate on their intentions about additional hearings. But the 
resolution does not contain any reference to anything beyond this first 
phase.
  The resolution on the Republican side, like the numerous amendments 
offered last week, seeks to expand the scope of the first phase of the 
hearings, something that Robert Fiske has said over and over is 
untenable as he continues to do his work in a very meaningful and 
productive fashion.
  The language is very vague, permitting what we would consider a 
``fishing expedition'' by any person into any activity that is illegal, 
improper, unauthorized, or unethical related to the Whitewater matters 
and occurring after January 20, 1994. The inclusion of ``improper'' and 
``unauthorized'' acts is particularly broad and vague.
  What are we talking about when we make reference to improper or 
unauthorized? Who is going to make that determination, over what 
timeframe? How does that relate to what Mr. Fiske is attempting to do 
with his investigation?
  The language might well expand the scope of the hearings into matters 
potentially under investigation in the ongoing inquiry by the special 
counsel in Little Rock or elsewhere.
  The majority leader's resolution provides for the hearings to 
conclude and for a report to be made to the Senate by the end of this 
session of Congress. The Republican resolution is open-ended with no 
requirement for the committee to complete its work by any date 
whatsoever.
  The majority leader's resolution provides funding for additional 
staff and expenses for the Banking Committee, something that Members of 
the Republican side have indicated is necessary if we are going to do 
this work correctly. The Republican resolution provides no limit on the 
cost of the investigation.
  The President has moved forcefully to address questions that have 
arisen about the so-called Whitewater matter. The Senator from Arkansas 
earlier addressed that in a very comprehensive manner.
  The President has faced questions from the media on several occasions 
including a major press conference. He has assured the American people. 
And he has taken necessary steps to assure that there will not be even 
the appearance of interference in the investigation by anyone in the 
White House.
  The President answered the special counsel's questions under oath for 
90 minutes, and Mrs. Clinton answered Mr. Fiske's questions, also under 
oath, for over an hour. According to press reports the questions were 
limited to the first phase of the matters which we contend ought to be 
done in this inquiry here in the Senate.
  The investigation by the special counsel is continuing. It is a 
serious matter. It is being conducted by a serious man. He is a man of 
unquestioned ability as a prosecutor. He is a Republican. He was named 
pursuant to the request led by congressional Republicans for a special 
counsel.
  His appointment was applauded by virtually everyone in this body and 
for good reason.
  Madam President, we need to allow Mr. Fiske to do his job. Many of 
the same Republicans who called for a special counsel shifted partisan 
gears as soon as he was named and began to call for immediate 
congressional hearings. Even in the face of that very counsel's 
opposition to any such hearings, they continue to demand that the 
Congress go forward in a way that risks damage to the investigation 
which has been begun by the special counsel.
  This willingness to demand public hearings at any cost is further 
evidence, in my view, that the purpose is political.
  The special counsel, Mr. Fiske, wrote on March 7, 1994, to the 
chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee 
requesting that the

     committee not conduct any hearings in the areas covered by 
     the grand jury's ongoing investigation, both in order to 
     avoid compromising that investigation and in order to further 
     the public interest in preserving fairness, thoroughness, and 
     confidentiality of the grand jury process.
  He further stated,

     We are doing everything possible to conduct and conclude as 
     expeditiously as possible a complete, thorough and impartial 
     investigation. Inquiry into the underlying events surrounding 
     MGS&L, Whitewater and CMS by a Congressional committee would 
     pose a severe risk to the integrity of our investigation.

  We must have the integrity of this investigation protected.
  On March 9, in a press conference, Mr. Fiske stated again that his 
investigation into the communications between White House officials and 
Treasury Department or Resolution Trust Corporation officials about 
Whitewater-related matters and his investigation into the Park Service 
investigation of the death of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster 
is complete, and he would have no objection to congressional hearings 
on those matters.
  I think he has emphasized over and over that on those matters he does 
not have any objection to our going forth, and that is really the 
purpose of the majority leader's resolution--to allow the committee to 
do its work, to allow the Senate to go on record as we did on March 17 
to do the work that is recognized to be the responsibility of this 
body.
  The bipartisan leadership of the House of Representatives confirmed 
its desire to do that, Madam President, on May 26. They met with Mr. 
Fiske and, at that meeting, too, Mr. Fiske stated that his intent was 
clear as could be: that we must recognize the importance of protecting 
his Whitewater investigation; that congressional hearings ought to be 
limited to communications between White House officials and Treasury 
Department officials about Whitewater matters, the Park Service Police 
investigation into the death of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent 
Foster, and the White House handling of Vincent Foster's files 
subsequent to his death.
  These are the matters specifically delineated in the resolution 
before us today.
  We have learned, Madam President, time and again from past experience 
what extensive interference in the ongoing investigations of a special 
counsel can do. We saw it in the Iran-Contra congressional hearings. We 
have seen it in other cases throughout history.
  Need we learn that lesson all over again? Need we confuse and 
confound and in some ways undermine the investigation of Mr. Fiske?
  Independent counsel Lawrence Walsh addressed that very question 
earlier this year, pleaded with us to recognize the importance of 
allowing the special counsel to do his work.
  I understand, Madam President, my time has expired.
  I just hope that: First, we can pass the resolution proposed by the 
majority leader; second, that we can get on with this investigation and 
in a meaningful way; and third, that we can turn to the agenda that is 
now before the Congress. We cannot afford to continue to paralyze this 
body with any more of the resolutions that we have had before us in the 
past couple of weeks.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The majority leader.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator from South 
Dakota will yield for a question?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, we have been in a situation where in 
every previous debate the Republican colleagues used far more time than 
the Democratic colleagues in the debate.
  I do not mind if the Senator wants to use the minute and a half to 
answer the question and we will use our time to respond.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I will use 30 seconds, then.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Fine.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I point out that the language that 
calls for investigation of activities, materials and transactions 
having a tendency to prove or disprove persons engaged in any illegal 
or improper or unethical activities comes from essentially two other 
committees. There is precedent--the Iran-Contra Committee and the 
Watergate Committee, and others. This was not just dreamed up. That is 
the kind of language that empowers the committee to go forth.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, and Members of the Senate, the Senate 
is now in its 6th legislative day on this so-called Whitewater matter, 
and the Senate is now debating and will soon vote for the 10th time on 
essentially the same issue.
  In this entire year, only one other bill has taken as many as 7 
legislative days. That was the Competitiveness Act, and the only reason 
that took so long was because Republican Senators filibustered the 
bill.
  So we have now reached the point where the Senate has spent as much 
or more time on this Whitewater matter as it has on any other matter 
that has come before the Senate this year. Yet our Republican 
colleagues suggests in the debate they need more time to debate this. I 
think that says very clearly to the American people what the priorities 
and programs of the two parties are.
  Our colleagues' highest priority is Whitewater. We want to get on 
with the business before the country. We want to pass the defense 
authorization bill this week. We want to deal with health care and 
crime. We want to deal with all of the legislation that will help 
improve the lives of Americans.
  Our Republican colleagues want to talk about Whitewater.
  Ask the American people, is Whitewater the most important issue 
facing the country? Is Whitewater the issue that requires the Senate to 
spend more time on it than any other matter that confronts the country? 
I think the answer, obviously, is no. And that is why the attempt by 
our Republican colleagues to create a political circus on Whitewater 
has fallen as flat as a lead balloon. The American people know what is 
going on. They know this is a purely partisan exercise to attack the 
President and Mrs. Clinton. It is not working. And it should not work.
  What is this issue that is so important that the Senate has to debate 
on it, not once or twice, not 5 or 6 or 8 or 9 times, but 10 times; 10 
times, debating and voting on the same issue, over and over and over 
again?
  It is not whether there will be hearings on the Whitewater matter. 
The Senate has voted on that, 98 to 0. We are going to adopt a 
resolution which provides for hearings on the first phase and we have 
committed ourselves to full hearings on all matters at the appropriate 
time. So there is no question about whether there will be hearings. 
There will indeed be hearings, as I have said right from the start.
  No, the issue, rather, is whether the first phase of the hearings 
will go beyond the subjects that are now in the first phase of the 
special counsel's investigation, contrary to the Senate resolution of 
March 17, approved 98 to 0, and contrary to the publicly stated wishes 
and urgings of the special counsel himself. That is the only issue 
before us.
  Our Republican colleagues want to expand the scope of the first phase 
to go beyond those subjects considered in the first phase of his 
investigation by the special counsel. Our resolution says our first 
phase of hearings will cover the subjects covered in the first phase of 
the special counsel's investigation. And when he completes the 
remainder of his investigation, the remainder of our hearings will 
cover all remaining subjects.
  By contrast, our Republican colleagues want the first phase of our 
hearings to cover all of the subjects that are under investigation 
about Whitewater. They want to be able now to sling more accusations at 
President and Mrs. Clinton, apparently unable to wait until the special 
counsel completes his investigation. And, in so doing, they are 
prepared to risk undermining the special counsel's investigation.
  Madam President, reference was made here today by our Republican 
colleagues about an editorial in the New York Times. There was 
conspicuous silence about the editorial in the Washington Post of 
yesterday.
  I ask unanimous consent that editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, June 19, 1994]

                        Congress and Whitewater

       New York Republican Sen. Alfonse M. D'Amato's knack for 
     uniting Democrats must make him the envy of the White House. 
     For the better part of a week, Senate Democrats have joined 
     forces to beat back partisan attempts by Sen. D'Amato and his 
     GOP colleagues to get political mileage out of the Whitewater 
     affair. The wrangling is over the terms of the Banking 
     Committee's pending Whitewater probe. The Republicans 
     complain that the agreement--reached along party lines--to 
     limit public hearings to those phases of the Whitewater probe 
     completed by special counsel Robert Fiske is an abandonment 
     of Congress's constitutional oversight responsibilities. They 
     also charge that the narrowly focused probe is a flagrant 
     attempt by Democrats to go bail for Bill Clinton. Their 
     passion notwithstanding, the Republicans' charges don't hold 
     much water.
       The terms of the Banking Committee probe meet the spirit of 
     a March 17 resolution in which the Senate voted 98-0 that 
     ``the hearings should be structured and sequenced in such a 
     manner that. . . they would not interfere with the ongoing 
     investigation of special counsel Robert B. Fiske Jr.'' Mr. 
     Fiske's position that Congress should allow the special 
     prosecutor to proceed without risk of congressional hearings 
     compromising either his work or the grand jury process lay 
     the heart of the resolution, which Senate Republicans 
     supported overwhelmingly. It is that intent that Sen. D'Amato 
     et al. are now trying to annul.
       By the end of this month, the initial phases of Mr. Fiske's 
     probe covering the investigation of the death of White House 
     deputy counsel Vincent Foster, the handling of his papers by 
     White House officials and Whitewater-related communications 
     between White House and Treasury officials will be finished. 
     These are the areas to be examined by the Senate Banking 
     Committee. Interestingly, without going through the Senate's 
     machinations, the House agreed to impose similar limits on 
     its own Banking Committee. To denounce the present structure 
     or the sequencing of hearings as a cover-up is wrong.
       While the proposed hearing will cover events in the Clinton 
     presidency, the Senate majority leader has given assurance of 
     additional hearings on issues that cover the Clintons' 
     political and business lives before the White House. It is no 
     abdication of Congress's oversight responsibility to be 
     mindful of the pitfalls of simultaneous probes.
       Congress ought to avoid hearings that might interfere with 
     prosecutorial efforts to compile admissible evidence leading 
     to convictions. Iran-contra taught that lesson. Why the rush? 
     The Clinton's aren't going anywhere. Senate Democrats should 
     hold firm.

  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, let me quote briefly from the article. 
I will paraphrase so as not to mention any individual Senator's name, 
although names are included in the editorial. The editorial says, 
``Congress and Whitewater.'' And it reads, in part: For the better part 
of a week, Senate Democrats have joined forces to beat back partisan 
attempts by their GOP colleagues to get political mileage out of the 
Whitewater affair.
  I don't think it could be stated more accurately: Partisan attempts 
to get political mileage out of the Whitewater affair. In a single 
sentence, that sums up what has been tying up the Senate for 6 days.
  Then it goes on to say the Republican charges do not hold much water. 
The editorial then recites, as we have here repeatedly, the resolution 
of March 17, voted by the Senate by a vote of 98 to 0.
  The editorial then goes on to say that:

       By the end of this month, the initial phases of Mr. Fiske's 
     probe covering the investigation of the death of White House 
     deputy counsel Vincent Foster, the handling of his papers by 
     White House officials and Whitewater-related communications 
     between White House and Treasury officials will be finished. 
     These are the areas to be examined by the Senate Banking 
     Committee. Interestingly, without going through the Senate's 
     machinations, the House agreed to impose similar limits on 
     its own Banking Committee. To denounce the present structure 
     or the sequencing of hearings as a cover-up is wrong.

  Madam President, let me go back in time so all Americans can 
understand clearly what is occurring here. Our Republican colleagues in 
the Senate earlier this year requested the appointment of a special 
counsel to investigate the Whitewater matter. A special counsel was 
appointed.
  That special counsel is himself a lifelong Republican, a man of 
experience and integrity, whose appointment was praised by all of our 
colleagues, including the junior Senator from New York. That special 
counsel then requested of the Senate and the House that they not 
conduct hearings that could interfere with or undermine his 
investigation. And he specifically requested that any first phase of 
hearings that were held in the Senate or House not go beyond the first 
phase of his investigation, so as not to jeopardize the remainder--and 
really what is the heart--of his investigation.
  Our Republican colleagues then reversed fields. Having supported the 
appointment of the special counsel, having praised the appointment of 
the special counsel, they now ask the Senate to act in a manner which 
directly contradicts the request of the special counsel.
  It is important that everyone understand, and so I repeat, again: We 
are going to have a full set of hearings on this matter. The only 
issue, the only question, is the timing and sequence of those hearings 
so as not to interfere with the special counsel's investigation. And 
that is what the Senate voted for. Everyone today, every Senator who 
votes for the pending resolution offered by the minority leader and the 
Senator from New York, the Republican resolution, will be voting to 
contradict his on her vote cast in March, because that resolution 
directly contradicts the earlier vote which stated that hearings should 
be sequenced in a manner so as not to interfere with the special 
counsel's investigation. This is a flip-flop. First a flip-flop on the 
special counsel, now a flip-flop on the Senate's vote itself, by our 
Republican colleagues.
  The hearings will be held, but they will be held at a time and in a 
manner that does not interfere with the special counsel's 
investigation. This is a matter of learning from precedent, not 
ignoring precedent. We saw what happened in the Iran-Contra case. And 
let me repeat that here now, briefly, so again people have a full 
understanding.
  There has always been a tension between congressional hearings and 
ongoing investigations by appropriate prosecutorial agencies, either 
the Justice Department or, as in this case, a special counsel acting in 
behalf of the Justice Department.
  That tension was covered under the law in a Supreme Court case, known 
as the Kastigar case, in which the Court set out the procedures by 
which a person could first testify under immunity at a congressional 
hearing and then still be subject to prosecution. It was a difficult 
but a reasonable and attainable test that could be met, so it was 
possible under the law to have both testimony by a witness at a 
congressional hearing under immunity and a subsequent prosecution of 
that person for acts covered in the testimony.
  In the Iran-Contra matter, former Marine LCol. Oliver North testified 
before the congressional committee under a guaranty of immunity. I 
personally, as a member of that committee, did not favor the grant of 
immunity. I felt it was unnecessary, that he would have testified in 
any event. Notwithstanding my view, the committee voted to grant him 
immunity. He testified. He was then indicted, prosecuted, and convicted 
on three felony counts.
  He appealed his conviction and the court of appeals returned the case 
to the district court, effectively reversing the convictions and 
establishing a new legal standard that did not previously exist with 
respect to such matters. And that legal standard has been interpreted 
by the independent counsel in that case, and many other legal scholars, 
to effectively preclude both congressional hearings and testimony under 
immunity, or otherwise, and a subsequent prosecution.

  That independent counsel stated, and I quote:

       I think the views of some of those in the congressional 
     committees that there was a possibility of concurrent 
     activity, that the Congress could investigate on television 
     and that the criminal prosecution could also go on, was just 
     proved to be wrong, and I think the lesson is very clear as 
     we spelled out in the report. Congress has control. It's a 
     political decision as to which is more important, but it 
     can't have both.

  The question now is whether we are to risk undermining the 
investigation of this special counsel, a special counsel appointed at 
the request of Republican Senators and whose appointment was applauded 
by Republican Senators because he himself is a lifelong Republican and 
a man of integrity.
  Madam President, it has been alleged here over and over again that 
this is a coverup. And yet the House of Representatives has accepted a 
procedure which is essentially identical to that contained in my 
resolution. Are our colleagues here really suggesting that the House 
Republican leadership is engaged in a coverup of this matter to protect 
President Clinton? Of all the fantastic allegations that have been made 
here on the Senate floor, I think that is the most fantastic.
  Clearly, the Republican leadership in the House is not interested in, 
nor are they participating in, a coverup of this matter. And yet they 
have adopted precisely the practice which is in our resolution and 
which is so vigorously attacked by our Republican colleagues in the 
Senate.
  In this instance at least, it is clear that the House Republicans and 
the House Democrats share the view of Democrats in the Senate and it is 
a view which I believe the American people share as well.
  Madam President, let me repeat what the issue is here and what it is 
not. Contrary to the allegations made by our colleagues, there will be 
a thorough congressional inquiry. It will be detailed. It will cover 
all of the matters that are involved in the so-called Whitewater affair 
as set forth in the resolution passed by the Senate on March 17.
  The only issue before us is the narrow issue of the timing of those 
hearings: Whether or not the first phase of the congressional hearings 
will be limited to those subjects which are covered in the first phase 
of the special counsel's investigation as the special counsel himself 
has repeatedly requested, or whether the Senate will go beyond those 
subjects in the first phase of its investigation to embrace the full 
matter in a way that would directly contradict the Senate's own vote of 
98-0, directly contradict the special counsel's request and pose the 
direct threat of undermining the special counsel's investigation. That 
is the only issue.
  We have already voted on this nine times, nine times in the previous 
5 calendar days before today, and the vote has been the same and I hope 
it will be the same today.
  I think the American people must ask: When are our colleagues going 
to accept the decision of the Senate, permit the hearings to go forward 
and to permit the Senate to do the important business before the 
country?
  Finally, let me say it is ironic, in view of all this discussion 
about additional hearings, that the Republican resolution makes no 
provision for the additional hearings. Our resolution does. And so, in 
fact, if someone really wants there to be hearings on all of the 
subject matters, they should vote for our resolution, because a vote 
for theirs does not include any provision for additional hearings 
beyond this additional phase. That is another indication that they want 
to throw everything into these additional hearings in an effort to 
attack the President and Mrs. Clinton.
  Madam President, I say to the Members of the Senate, the issue is 
clear, the issue has been voted on nine times with the same result. I 
hope that this 10th time will be the last time we vote on this. We have 
already wasted more than we should of the Senate's time dealing with 
this matter, and it is time now to permit the hearings to go forward. 
It is time now to turn the attention of the Senate to the other 
important business which awaits us.
  Under law, we must act on 13 appropriations bills. We are going back 
to one today. We have a number of others. We have to pass the defense 
authorization bill. We are going to do that. We have a number of 
important measures. In the near future, we hope to be dealing with 
health care on the Senate floor.
  If our Republican colleagues want to go to the American people and 
say they think Whitewater is more important than all of those things, 
that is their business. But for us, we feel this is the way to end it, 
this is the time to end it, and let us get on with the rest of the 
business.
  Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, on the questions of how important is 
Whitewater, and does it square up on the relative polls, let me say 
that if there has been an abuse of power, an abuse which prevented 
agencies from doing their job, then there is nothing--nothing--more 
important than the Whitewater hearings.
  Abuse of power attacks the very fundamental principles of our 
democracy: Government for the people, not a tyrannical Government.
  As for the House of Representatives and their actions, let me tell 
you 256 Democrats, 178 Republicans--this was not an agreement. No way. 
It is more like an offer you can't refuse.
  In regard to the composition of the committee and the other aspects 
of our amendment, the resolution put forth by Senator Dole and myself 
requires that the 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 
the independent counsel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute forty-five seconds.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, that is not much time, so I would not 
attempt to recapitulate the argument in its entirety. But I think every 
Member of this Senate knows what is going on.
  This is, as the Washington Post stated, a partisan effort to gain 
political advantage. This is an effort by our colleagues to use any 
mechanism to divert attention away from their own lack of any 
meaningful program to deal with the problems facing this country and, 
at the same time, to attack President and Mrs. Clinton.
  We have seen it and heard it out here on the Senate floor over the 
past six calendar days, spread over nearly a 2-week period: Over and 
over again innuendo about the President and Mrs. Clinton, even though 
unsubstantiated, even though unproven, but nonetheless thrown out in an 
effort to create some impression in the minds of the American people 
that the President and Mrs. Clinton have done something wrong.
  I will just say again, Madam President, we have debated this nine 
times. We voted nine times. Now we have debated it a 10th time. We are 
going to vote it a 10th time. I urge my colleagues, cast the same vote 
that we did previously. Reject this resolution, adopt the underlying 
resolution and then let us get on to the business facing this country, 
what the American people want us to do, which is something about jobs, 
economic growth, health care, crime. Those are the issues. Those are 
the issues.

  Madam President, my time is up. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________