[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 205 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18964-S18969]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         CIVILITY IN THE SENATE

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I speak from prepared remarks because I 
wanted to be most careful in how I chose my words and so that I might 
speak as the Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Colossians admonished 
us to do:

       Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, 
     that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.
  Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern at the growing 
incivility in this Chamber. It reached a peak of excess on last Friday 
during floor debate with respect to the budget negotiations and the 
Continuing Resolution. One Republican Senator said that he agreed with 
the Minority Leader that we do have legitimate differences. ``But you 
do not have the guts to put those legitimate differences on the 
table,'' that Senator said. He went on to state, ``and then you have 
the gall to come to us and tell us that we ought to put another 
proposal on the table.'' Now, Mr. President, I can only presume that 
the Senator was directing his remarks to the Minority Leader, although 
he was probably including all members on this side of the aisle. He 
also said that the President of the United States ``has, once again, 
proven that his commitment to principle is non-existent. He gave his 
word; he broke his word. It is a habit he does not seem able to 
break.''
  Mr. President, I do not know what the matter of ``guts'' has to do 
with the Continuing Resolution or budget negotiations. Simply put, 
those words are fighting words when used off the Senate floor. One 
might expect to hear them in an alehouse or beer tavern, where the 
response would likely be the breaking of a bottle over the ear of the 
one uttering the provocation, or in a pool hall, where the results 
might be the cracking of a cue stick on the skull of the provocator. Do 
we have to resort to such language in this forum? In the past century, 
such words would be responded to by an invitation to a duel.
  And who is to judge another person's commitment to principle as being 
non-existent?
  I am not in a position to judge that with respect to any other man or 
woman in this Chamber or on this Earth.
  Mr. President, the Senator who made these statements is one whom I 
have known to be amiable and reasonable. I like him. And I was shocked 
to hear such strident words used by him, with such a strident tone. I 
hope that we will all exercise a greater restraint upon our passions 
and avoid making extreme statements that can only serve to further 
polarize the relationships between the two parties in this Chamber and 
between the executive and legislative branches. By all means, we should 
dampen our impulses to engage in personal invective.
  Another Senator, who is very new around here, made the statement--and 
I quote from last Friday's Record: ``This President just does not know 
how to tell the truth anymore,'' and then accused the President of 
stating to ``the American public--bald-faced untruths.'' The Senator 
went on to say that, ``we are tired of stomaching untruths over here. 
We are downright getting angry over here''--the Senator was speaking 
from the other side of the aisle. Then with reference to the President 
again, the Senator said, ``This guy is not going to tell the truth,'' 
and then proceeded to accuse the President ``and many Senators''--``and 
many Senators''--of making statements that 

[[Page S18965]]
tax cuts have been targeted for the wealthy, ``when they know that is a 
lie.'' Now, the Senator said, ``I am using strong terms like `lie.''' 
Then the Senator made reference to a lack of statesmanship: ``When are 
we going to get statesmen again in this country? When are we going to 
get these statesmen here in Washington again?'' And then answering his 
own question, he said, ``they are here,'' presumably, one would 
suppose, referring to himself as one such statesman.

  Mr. President, such statements are harsh and severe, to say the 
least. And when made by a Senator who has not yet held the office of 
Senator a full year, they are really quite astonishing. In my 37 years 
in this Senate, I do not recall such insolence, and it is very sad that 
debate and discourse on the Senate floor have sunk to such a low level. 
The Senator said, ``We are downright getting angry over here.'' Now, 
what is that supposed to mean? Does it mean that we on this side should 
sit in fear and in trembling because someone is getting downright 
angry? Mr. President, those whom God wishes to destroy, he first makes 
mad. Solomon tells us: ``He that is slow to anger is better than the 
mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city.''
  Moreover, Mr. President, for a Senator to make reference on the 
Senate floor to any President, Democrat or Republican, as ``this guy'' 
is to show an utter disrespect for the office of the presidency itself, 
and is also to show an uncaring regard for the disrespect that the 
Senator brings upon himself as a result. ``This guy is not going to 
tell the truth,'' the Senator said, and then he proceeded to state that 
the President ``and many Senators'' have made statements concerning tax 
cuts--and that would include almost all Senators on this side, because 
almost all of us have so stated--that ``they know that is a lie,''--and 
I am quoting--that ``they know that is a lie''--admitting, the Senator 
said, that the word ``lie'' is a strong term. I have never heard that 
word used in the Senate before in addressing other Senators. I have 
never heard other Senators called liars. I have never heard a Senator 
say that other Senators lie.
  Mr. President, the use of such maledicent language on the Senate 
floor is quite out of place, and to accuse other Senators of being 
liars is to skate on very, very thin ice, indeed.
  In his first of three epistles, John admonishes us: ``He that saith, 
I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth 
is not in him.'' Mr. President, it seems to me that by that standard, 
all of us are certainly--or certainly most of us fall into the 
classification of liar, and before accusing other Senators of telling a 
lie, one should ``cast first the beam out of thine own eye, and then 
shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's 
eye.''
  Mr. President, can't we rein in our tongues and lower our voices and 
speak to each other and about each other in a more civil fashion? I can 
disagree with another Senator. I have done so many times in this 
Chamber. I can state that he is mistaken in his facts; I can state that 
he is in error. I can do all these things without assaulting his 
character by calling him a liar, by saying that he lies. Have civility 
and common courtesy and reasonableness taken leave of this Chamber? 
Surely the individual vocabularies of Members of this body have not 
deteriorated to the point that we can only express ourselves in such 
crude and coarse and offensive language. The proverb tells us that ``A 
fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till 
afterwards.'' Can we no longer engage in reasoned, even intense, 
partisan exchanges in the Senate without imputing evil motives to other 
Senators, without castigating the personal integrity of our colleagues? 
Such utterly reckless statements can only poison the waters of the well 
of mutual respect and comity which must prevail in this body if our two 
political parties are to work together in the best interests of the 
people whom we serve. The work of the two Leaders, the work of Mr. 
Dole, the work of Mr. Daschle, is thus made more difficult. There is 
enough controversy in the natural course of things in this bitter year, 
without making statements that stir even greater controversy and 
divisiveness.
  ``If a House be divided against itself, that House cannot stand,'' we 
are told in Mark's Gospel. Surely the people who see and hear the 
Senate at its worst must become discouraged and throw up their hands in 
disgust at hearing such sour inflammatory rhetoric, which exhales 
itself fuliginously. What can our young people think--they listen to C-
SPAN; they watch C-SPAN. What can our young people think when they hear 
grown men in the premiere upper body among the world's legislatures 
casting such rash aspersions upon the President of the United States 
and upon other Senators? Political partisanship is to be expected in a 
legislative body--we all engage in it--but bitter personal attacks go 
beyond the pale of respectable propriety. And let us all be 
scrupulously mindful of the role that vitriolic public statements can 
play in the stirring of the dark cauldron of violent passions which are 
far too evident in our land today. Oklahoma City is but 8 months behind 
us. Washington, in his farewell address, warned against party and 
factional strife. In remarks such as those that were made last Friday, 
we are seeing bitter partisanship and factionalism at their worst. I 
hope that the leaders of our two parties will attempt to impress upon 
our colleagues the need to tone down the rhetoric and to avoid engaging 
in vicious diatribes that impugn and question the motives and 
principles and the personal integrity of other Senators and of the 
President of the United States.

  It is one thing to criticize the policies of the President and his 
administration. I have offered my own strong criticism of President 
Clinton and past Presidents of both parties in respect to some of their 
policies. I simply do not agree with some of them. But it is quite 
another matter to engage in personal attacks that hold the President up 
to obloquy and opprobrium and scorn. Senators ought to be bigger than 
that. Anyone who thinks of himself as a gentleman ought to be above 
such contumely. The bandying about of such words as liar, or lie, can 
only come from a contumelious lip, and for one, who has been honored by 
the electorate to serve in the high office of United States Senator, to 
engage in such rude language arising from haughtiness and contempt, is 
to lower himself in the eyes of his peers, and of the American people 
generally, to the status of a street brawler.
  Mr. President, in 1863, Willard Saulsbury of Delaware, in lengthy 
remarks, referred to President Abraham Lincoln as a ``weak and imbecile 
man'' and accused other Senators of ``blackguardism.'' Saulsbury was 
ruled out of order by the Vice President who sat in the Chair and 
ordered to take his seat. Another Senator offered a resolution the 
following day for his expulsion, but Saulsbury appeared the next day 
and apologized to the Senate for his remarks, which were quite out of 
order, and that was the end of the matter. Senators should take note of 
this and try to restrain their indulgence for outlandish and extreme 
accusations and charges in public debate on this floor.
  The kind of mindless gabble and rhetorical putridities as were voiced 
on this floor last Friday can only create bewilderment and doubt among 
the American people as to our ability to work with each other in this 
Chamber. And that is what they expect us to do. Certainly these are not 
the attributes and marks of a statesman. Statesmen do not call each 
other liars or engage in such execrations as fly from pillar to post in 
this Chamber. I have seen statesmen during my time in the Senate, and 
they have stood on both sides of the aisle. They have stood tall, sun-
crowned, and above the fog in public duty and in private thinking--
above the fog of personal insinuations and malicious calumny.
  The Bob Tafts, the Everett Dirksens--I have seen him stand at that 
desk--the Everett Dirksens, the Norris Cottons, the George Aikens, the 
Howard Bakers, the Jack Javitses, the Hugh Scotts, or the John Heinzes 
of yesteryear did not throw the word ``lie'' in the teeth of their 
colleagues. Nor do such honorable colleagues who serve today as Thad 
Cochran, Mark Hatfield, Ted Stevens, John Chafee, Arlen Specter, Nancy 
Kassebaum, Bill Cohen, Orrin Hatch, John Warner, Dirk Kempthorne, Alan 
Simpson--oh, there is one I will miss when he leaves this Chamber--and 
many 

[[Page S18966]]
other Senators on that side of the aisle. Bob Bennett of Utah 
recognized the rhetorical cesspool for what it was last Friday and he 
kept himself above it. He took note of it. I have never heard our 
majority leader, I have never heard our minority leader, I have never 
heard any majority leader or minority leader accuse other Senators of 
lying. I am confident that our leaders and most Senators find such 
gutter talk to be unacceptable in this forum.
  Mr. President, in 1986, I helped to open the Senate floor to the 
televising of Senate debate. On the whole, I think it has worked rather 
well. I believed then and I still believe that TV coverage of Senate 
debate can and should educate and inspire the American people. But in 
my 37 years in the United States Senate, this has been a different 
year. William Manchester in his book ``The Glory and the Dream'' speaks 
of the year 1932 as the ``cruelest year.'' I was a boy growing up in 
the Depression in 1932. I remember it as the cruelest year. But, Mr. 
President, in some ways, I think this year has been even more cruel. I 
have seen the Senate deteriorate this year. The decorum in the Senate 
has deteriorated, and political partisanship has run rife. And when the 
American people see and hear such intellectual pemmican as was spewed 
forth on this floor last Friday, no wonder there is such a growing 
disrespect for Congress throughout the country. The American people 
have every right to think that we are just a miserable lot of bickering 
juveniles, and I have come to be sorry that television is here, when we 
make such a spectacle of ourselves. When we accuse our colleagues of 
lying--I have never done that. I have never heard it done in this 
Senate before. Clay and John Randolph fought a duel over less than 
that. Aaron Burr shot and killed Alexander Hamilton for less than that. 
When we accuse our colleagues of lying and deliver ourselves of 
reckless imprecations and vengeful maledictions against the President 
of the United States, and against other Senators, it is no wonder--no 
wonder--that good men and women who have served honorably and long in 
this body are saying they have had enough! They may not go out here 
publicly and say that, but they have had enough.
  Mr. President, it is with profound sadness that I have taken the 
Floor today to express my alarm and concern at the poison that has 
settled in upon this chamber. There have been giants in this Senate, 
and I have seen some of them. Little did I know when I came here that I 
would live to see pygmies stride like colossuses while marveling, like 
Aesop's fly, sitting on the axle of a chariot, ``My, what a dust I do 
raise!''
  Mr. President, party has a tendency to warp intelligence. I was 
chosen a Senator by a majority of the people of West Virginia seven 
times, but not for a majority only. I was chosen by a party, but not 
for a party. I try to represent all of the people of the state--
Democrats and Republicans--who sent me here. I recognize no claim upon 
my action in the name and for the sake of party only. The oath I have 
taken 13 times, and in my 50 years of public service, is to support and 
defend the Constitution of my country's government, not the fiat of any 
political organization. This is not to say that political party is not 
important. It is. But party is not all important. Many times I have 
said that, and I have said that there are several things that are more 
important than political party. Sometimes as I sit and listen to Senate 
debate, I get the impression that to some of us, political party is 
above everything else. I sometimes get the impression that, more 
important than what serves the best interests of our country is what 
serves the political fortunes of a political party in the next 
elections. This Senate was not created for that purpose. This is not a 
forum that was created for the purpose of advancing one's political 
career or one's political party. In the day that the Senate was 
created, no such thing as political party in the United States was even 
a consideration. None of our forebears who created our republican form 
of government was for a party, but all were for the state. Political 
parties were formed afterward and have grown in strength since, and 
today the troubles that afflict our country, in many ways, chiefly may 
be said to arise from the dangerous excess of party feeling in our 
national councils. What does reason avail, when party spirit presides?
  The welfare of the country is more dear than the mere victory of 
party. As George William Curtis once said, some may scorn this 
practical patriotism as impracticable folly. But such was the folly of 
the Spartan Leonidas, holding back, with his 300, the Persian horde, 
and teaching Greece the self reliance that saved her. Such was the 
folly of the Swiss Arnold von Winkelried, gathering into his own breast 
the points of Austrian spears, making his dead body the bridge of 
victory for his countrymen. Such was the folly of Nathan Hale, who, on 
September 22, 1776, gladly risked the seeming disgrace of his name, and 
grieved that he had but one life to give for his country. Such was the 
folly of Davy Crockett and 182 other defenders of the Alamo who were 
slain after holding out 13 days against a Mexican army in 1836, thus 
permitting Sam Houston time enough to perfect plans for the defense of 
Texas. Such are the beacon lights of a pure patriotism that burn 
forever in men's memories and shine forth brightly through the 
illuminated ages. What has happened to all of that?
  Mr. President, when our forefathers were blackened by the smoke and 
grime at Shiloh and at Fredericksburg, they did not ask or care whether 
those who stood shoulder to shoulder beside them were Democrats or 
Republicans; they asked only that they might prove as true as was the 
steel in the rifles that they grasped in their hands. The cannonballs 
that mowed brave men down like stalks of corn were not labeled 
Republican cannonballs or Democrat cannonballs. When those intrepid 
soldiers fought with unfailing loyalty to General Thomas J. Jackson--
who was born in what is now Harrison County, West Virginia--who stood 
like a wall of stone in the midst of shot and shell at the first battle 
of Bull Run, they did not ask each other whether that brave officer, 
who later fell the victim of a rifle ball, was a Democrat or 
Republican. They did not pause to question the politics of that cool 
gunner standing by his smoking cannon in the midst of death, whether 
the poor wounded, mangled, gasping comrades, crushed and torn, and 
dying in agony all about them--had voted for Lincoln or Douglas, for 
Breckinridge or Bell. No. They were full of other thoughts. Men were 
prized for what they were worth to the common country of us all, not 
for the party to which they belonged. The bones that molder today 
beneath the sod in Flanders Field and in Arlington Cemetery do not 
sleep in graves that are Republican or Democrat. These are Americans 
who gave their lives in the service of their country, not in the 
service of a political party. We who serve together in this Senate, 
must know this in our hearts.
  I understand, and we understand, that partisanship plays a part in 
our work here. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. There is 
nothing inherently wrong with partisanship. But I hope that we will all 
take a look at ourselves on both sides of this aisle and understand 
also that we must work together in harmony and with mutual respect for 
one another. This very charter of government under which we live was 
created in a spirit of compromise and mutual concession. And it is only 
in that spirit that a continuance of this charter of government can be 
prolonged and sustained. When the Committee on Style and Revision of 
the Federal Convention of 1787 had prepared a digest of their plan, 
they reported a letter to accompany the plan to Congress, from which I 
take these words: ``And thus the Constitution which we now present is 
the result of a spirit of amity and of that mutual deference and 
concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered 
indispensable.''
  Mr. President, Majorian, the Emperor of the West, in 457 A.D. said he 
was a prince ``who still gloried in the name of Senator.''
  Mr. President, as one who has gloried in the name of Senator, I 
shudder to think of the day when, because of the shamelessness and 
reckless intemperance of a few, I might instead become one who is 
embarrassed by it.
  Let us stop this seemingly irresistible urge to destroy all that we 
have always held sacred. Let us cease this childish need to resort to 
emotional strip-tease on the Senate Floor.
  Let us remember that we are lucky enough to reside in the greatest 
country on earth and to have the further 

[[Page S18967]]
fortune to have been selected by the American people to actively 
participate as their representatives in this miraculous experiment in 
freedom which has set the world afire with hope.
  Mr. President, there are rules of the Senate and we simply cannot 
ignore those rules. We must defend them and cherish them. I will read 
to the Senate what Vice President Adlai E. Stevenson said with regard 
to the Senate's rules on March 3, 1897, because I believe his 
observation is as fitting today as it was at the end of the 19th 
century:

       It must not be forgotten that the rules governing this body 
     are founded deep in human experience; that they are the 
     result of centuries of tireless effort in legislative hall, 
     to conserve, to render stable and secure, the rights and 
     liberties which have been achieved by conflict. By its rules 
     the Senate wisely fixes the limits to its own power. Of those 
     who clamor against the Senate, and its methods of procedure, 
     it may be truly said: ``They know not what they do.'' In this 
     Chamber alone are preserved, without restraint, two 
     essentials of wise legislation and of good government--the 
     right of amendment and of debate. Great evils often result 
     from hasty legislation; rarely from the delay which follows 
     full discussion and deliberation. In my humble judgment, the 
     historic Senate--preserving the unrestricted right of 
     amendment and of debate, maintaining intact, the time-honored 
     parliamentary methods and amenities which unfailingly secure 
     action after deliberation--possesses in our scheme of 
     government a value which cannot be measured by words.

  Mr. President, we must honor these rules. The distinguished Presiding 
Officer today, Slade Gorton of Washington, respects and honors these 
rules. We simply have to stop this business of castigating the 
integrity of other Senators. We all have to abide by these rules.
  Mr. President, may a temperate spirit return to this chamber and may 
it again reign in our public debates and political discourses, that the 
great eagle in our national seal may continue to look toward the sun 
with piercing eyes that survey, with majestic grace, all who come 
within the scope and shadow of its mighty wings.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is informed under the 
previous order the next Senator to be recognized was the Senator from 
Minnesota [Mr. Grams].
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of 
order for 2 minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I also ask to be allowed to speak out of 
order for 5 minutes. I do think that this has been a very important 
discourse, but I do think it is important that a response be heard from 
both sides of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I want to thank, first, the Senator from Minnesota for 
accommodating my unanimous-consent request.
  I begin by saying I believe the Senate owes a debt of gratitude to 
the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for the appropriate 
lecture that he has given each and every one of us. That speech ought 
to be reprinted and sent to every civics class in the country. It ought 
to be reprinted and sent to every legal function that is held for the 
next several weeks, and perhaps most importantly it ought to be 
reprinted and sent to every U.S. Senator and Congressman sitting today. 
It ought to be reread. It ought to be studied. It ought to be 
respected. Never has his wisdom, clarity of his reasoning or his 
eloquence been more evident. It needed to be said.
  The distinguished Senator from West Virginia mentioned many giants, 
past and present, of the U.S. Senate. I add to that list the name 
Robert C. Byrd, a Senator motivated by a profound respect for this 
institution, a Senator driven by a profound belief in what is right, 
what is good, and what is so critical in this remarkable institution.
  Today, he is right. We have lost civility. The need for bipartisan 
spirit, as we debate the critical issues of the day, could never be 
more profound and more important. Excessive partisanship is as 
destructive to this institution as violence is to ourselves.
  So I express the gratitude of many who have had the good fortune this 
afternoon to have heard his remarkable words. I simply urge each of our 
colleagues to reread his remarks, to think of them carefully, and to 
listen to them and take the advice. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I, too, came to the floor and listened to 
the entire presentation by the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia. I knew it would be illuminating. No Senator, I am sure, knows 
as much about the history, the record, the decorum in this institution 
than the Senator from West Virginia. And he very often comes and 
reminds us of history and how it should relate to what we are doing 
today. I always find it extremely interesting. And he laces his remarks 
with quotations from history, from great statesmen, from the Bible. 
They are all woven together beautifully and we are all indebted for his 
presentations.
  And I agree that it is timely and that we should all take stock of 
what he had to say, his admonitions, on both sides of the aisle.
  I have been in this city, now, for 27 years--4 years as a staff 
member to the chairman of the Rules Committee in the House of 
Representatives, a Democrat; 16 years in the House of Representatives, 
including 8 years as the minority whip, and 7 years in the Senate. I 
remember how civility collapsed in the House of Representatives during 
the latter part of those years; the second half of the 1980's, 1985, 
1986, 1987. I remember the night I decided to run for this body. It 
became so uncivil that the Members were literally shouting at each 
other. A vote was held open for over 30 minutes so that one Member from 
Texas could be brought back to the Chamber and, in effect, forced to 
switch his vote. I was ashamed of our conduct. I was ashamed of my own 
conduct that night. And I said there has to be a better place than 
this. I hoped I would find it here.
  I remember one time in the House of Representatives, when the Speaker 
of the House of Representatives came from the chair down into the well, 
and impugned the integrity of a Member of the House of Representatives. 
And I rose to my feet and demanded that the Speaker's words be taken 
down, and the acting Speaker had to rule that the Speaker of the 
institution was out of order, at which point I asked unanimous consent 
that the Record be expunged of his remarks and we be allowed to 
proceed. He was out of order. I know about excessive partisanship, 
excessive rhetoric, and the breakdown of civility. I have seen it as a 
staff member, as a House Member.
  And now we come to this body. It is a body that we should all have 
reverence for, and that is what the Senator from West Virginia seeks. 
It is a body that has always prided itself in respect for each other 
and for the rights of the individual Senator. I still chafe, sometimes, 
under the idea that one Senator can tie up this entire institution to 
the disadvantage of all the rest of us, or one Senator can keep us all 
waiting while he or she comes to vote and we all stand around, 
shuffling our feet. But that is this system. It is unique. It is 
special. While I, as an old House Member, grumble about it, I do not 
want a Rules Committee over here. I want the Senate to be the Senate. I 
understand its uniqueness.

  So we do not want decorum to slip, and it has been slipping on both 
sides. But let me suggest that maybe you should think about it on both 
sides of the aisle. Because I have been seeing it slipping on the other 
side. The partisanship has been getting heated.
  Party is not the most important thing here--not for me, not for most 
of us. I was a Democrat. I showed that party was not the important 
thing to me, that my philosophy was more important, because I ran as a 
Republican after having been raised, I guess, as a Democrat. I am here 
because I care for the country and because of the things that I think 
are important for the country.
  I submit, one of the reasons why this year has been so tough is 
because this year we are dealing with big issues, fundamental changes--
fundamental changes. I care about them, not because of my party or this 
President or that President. I care about them because of my daughter 
and my son. I want to make sure that they have the opportunities that I 
have had for the rest of their lives. So they do matter.
  These are tense intense times. There are differences that really 
matter. But we do not have to be disrespectful to 

[[Page S18968]]
each other to disagree. I have a great respect for the distinguished 
minority leader. I have known him for years, worked with him, talked to 
him. And the Senator from California, [Mrs. Feinstein] we talk 
together, we work together. I believe in sharing information. One of 
the things that bothers me around here sometimes is you cannot get 
information from either side.
  But I think we need to remember that these are important issues and I 
think maybe part of what is happening here is a little chafing that, 
after all, after 8 years we have a majority over here. We had it 
briefly in the 1980's, but there has been a switch back. The minority 
is just unhappy with not having the votes for their issues.
  But when we do get right up in each other's faces on these issues and 
start using words like ``tawdry'' and ``sleazy,'' when you are talking 
about an action of the leader, that is not the way we ought to proceed.

  So, whether it is partisanship, or strong political feelings, or 
words that are too strong, we should all just cool it a little bit. I 
think, perhaps, as a result of the speech of the Senator from West 
Virginia and others who feel that we do need to find a way to bring 
this under control, that we will find a way to do so. I hope we will 
work in that vein and I certainly will support that effort with my own 
efforts.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I do.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator calls to the attention of the Senate the words 
``tawdry'' and ``sleazy'' that I once used on the floor. Of course he 
had a purpose in doing that.
  May I say, I never called any Senator a liar. I was not talking about 
the personality of the majority leader in that instance. I was talking 
about an agreement that had been broken.
  I am very careful, I try to be careful, and sometimes I speak in 
haste. And subsequent to that remark on this very floor one evening, I 
referred to my having spoken in haste, and to my having used some 
words, which I wish I had chosen differently. So nobody needs to remind 
this Senator as to what this Senator has said. I am ready to defend 
anything I say.
  Never once have I said that any Senator lied, or that any Senator was 
a liar. And I do not intend ever to do that. That is what we are 
talking about here today.
  Mr. LOTT. I agree and we should not be calling each other liars, or 
other people, or anybody here on the floor. But we all ought to be 
careful not to skate too close to the edge in the words we use, and try 
to find a way to make our case positively. I think we can all do that, 
and I hope that we will strive to do that, on both sides of the aisle, 
in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota is entitled to be recognized.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, if I might, I believe under the previous 
order there is a unanimous consent for Senator Grams, to be followed by 
Senator Leahy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I ask unanimous consent to expand that, so Senator Mack 
might be recognized after Senator Leahy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as a member of the special committee to 
investigate Whitewater, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support 
Senate Resolution 199.
  For months, our committee has been trying to get to the bottom of the 
controversial affair known as Whitewater--the unsavory Arkansas land 
development deal whose principal investors included the President and 
the First Lady and which contributed in large part to the $60 million 
failure of Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan.
  This committee was initially convened to investigate the failure of 
Madison, which was bailed out at the expense of the taxpayers, and the 
role that the Clintons' investments in Whitewater may have played in 
Madison's demise.
  But as time has passed and the committee has dug deeper into this 
matter, new issues regarding the Clinton administration have arisen--
issues related to arrogance, abuse of power, lack of accountability to 
the people, and obstruction of justice.
  There is no clearer example of these unseemly traits than the issue 
facing the Senate today: the President's assertion of the attorney-
client privilege to withhold notes taken by a taxpayer-paid public 
servant at a meeting to discuss Bill Clinton's personal legal problems.
  On November 5, 1993, a meeting was held in Washington by seven men--
three private attorneys and four White House officials: White House 
counsel Bernard Nussbaum, associate White House counsels William 
Kennedy and Neil Eggleston, and White House Personnel Director Bruce 
Lindsey.
  From the information we have been able to collect, the meeting 
concerned: first, criminal referrals related to Madison Guaranty which 
named Bill and Hillary Clinton as potential witnesses; and second, the 
criminal lending practices of Capital Management Services--a federally 
licensed company which allegedly diverted funds to Whitewater.
  When questioned by the special committee, both Mr. Lindsey and Mr. 
Kennedy refused to discuss the substance of that November 1993 meeting. 
In addition, Mr. Kennedy refused to provide us with his notes from the 
meeting, despite evidence showing that these notes may be significantly 
related to our investigation.
  Mr. Kennedy, at the instruction of counsel for both the President and 
the First Lady, went so far as to ignore a subpoena from our committee 
for these notes. Instead, he and the President asserted that the 
attorney-client privilege protects them from disclosing these notes.
  For reasons given by many of my colleagues today, this claim on a 
legal basis is at best questionable. But in the midst of this important 
debate over the legal ramifications of the President's abuse of this 
privilege, I hope that the ethical issues that have surrounded this 
event will not be ignored.
  At the time of this meeting, Mr. Kennedy served as associate White 
House counsel. Like Mr. Nussbaum, Mr. Eggleston, and Mr. Lindsey, he 
was paid not by President Clinton, but by the taxpayers. His office was 
furnished by taxpayers' dollars. His business expenses were covered by 
taxpayers' dollars.
  Given these facts, it is obvious to me that Mr. Kennedy's true 
clients, the people to whom he owned his legal services, were you and 
me: the taxpayers. This relationship, however, has still not been 
honestly recognized by President Clinton.
  By asserting privilege over these notes, President Clinton 
essentially said that Mr. Kennedy worked for him, in spite of the fact 
that Bill Clinton did not pay Mr. Kennedy's salary. By using this legal 
tool, Bill Clinton in essence turned his own personal legal bills over 
to the taxpayers. And that, Mr. President, is dead wrong.
  I suppose we should not be too surprised by President Clinton's 
actions. After all, Mr. Kennedy is just one of many current and former 
employees of the executive branch involved in this apparent coverup of 
Whitewater.
  During our hearings, we have heard from a number of Federal 
employees--political appointees and civil servants alike--about their 
roles in keeping this whole matter quiet and away from the eye of 
public scrutiny.
  It's clear to me and anyone else who has paid attention to our 
hearings that Bill Clinton has used every tool in his grasp to 
stonewall this investigation. This use of privilege to shield Mr. 
Kennedy's notes from the public was the most blatant abuse of power we 
have seen, but it has not been the only one.
  Do not misunderstand me--I believe every citizen, including the 
President of the United States of America, is entitled to the 
protections of the attorney-client privilege. But no one, not even the 
President, has the right to abuse this privilege, especially when doing 
so means furthering one's personal gain over the public good.
  And even with the White House inching toward some sort of agreement, 
the damage has already been done. The attorney-client privilege has 
already been asserted to protect not Just Bill Clinton, but also 
President Clinton.
  Today, the Oliver Stone film ``Nixon'' is opening in theaters across 
America. I suggest that Bill Clinton arrange a private screening in the 
White House theater, as it should be most instructive for the future.

[[Page S18969]]

  What the people hated most about the Watergate scandal was not the 
amateur break-in at the Democratic National Committee. What they could 
not tolerate and what led to the resignation of President Nixon was the 
cover-up, the stonewalling, the fact that the President placed himself 
above the law.
  But Mr. President, even Richard Nixon did not hide behind the 
attorney-client privilege. Bill Clinton did.
  Eighteen-months ago this was something that President Clinton said 
that he would never do, as we can see from a quote from President 
Clinton's remarks to a town meeting in Charlotte, NC on April 5, 1994. 
The President said:

       I've looked for no procedural ways to get around this. I 
     say, you tell me you want to know, I'll give you the 
     information. I have done everything I could to be open and 
     aboveboard.

  Some have asked why it is so important that the special committee 
receive access to Mr. Kennedy's notes. I can only answer by asking 
President Clinton why it was so important to him that these notes not 
be seen. Why did he go to such lengths as to use privilege as a shield 
to hide these notes from the public?
  Obviously, if there is nothing to hide, there is no reason to keep 
these notes a secret or to conditionally withhold them. If there is 
nothing incriminating in these pages, why not disclose them openly and 
honestly?
  The fact of the matter is we will not know until we see them. And if 
there is something there, these notes may help us piece together the 
puzzle known as Whitewater.
  Because unlike the witnesses from the administration who have been 
expertly coached to experience suspiciously selective memory during 
their testimony, these notes cannot hide anything. They cannot duck 
questions by saying, ``My memory fails me'' or ``I can't recollect at 
this time.''
  And maybe that is what scares Bill Clinton the most.
  Mr. President, it may surprise you, but I hope that these notes do 
not incriminate anyone. Like most Americans, I want to think the best 
of our President.
  But we have a responsibility to get to the bottom of this whole 
affair, because, like everyone who has worked for the Clinton 
administration, we too are paid by the taxpayers. And we owe it to them 
to uncover the truth, no matter how dark or unsavory it might be.
  That, Mr. President, is what this resolution before the Senate is all 
about--it is what this entire Whitewater investigation is about: Our 
obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the 
truth. I urge the President to unconditionally release these notes.
  If he does not, I hope my colleagues will join me in a spirit of 
honesty and openness in supporting this resolution. We owe the American 
people that much.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from Vermont.

                          ____________________