[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 26 (Thursday, February 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1429-S1441]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WHITEWATER
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know others wish to speak and ask
questions. I will ask one more question at this time. I think it is
really the key question that we had asked in answer to the objections
we are hearing from the other side of the aisle.
There have been complaints that the chairman's request does not set
up an end date for the investigation. I assume he has some very good
reasons for that. Why can we not say that the investigation will end on
such and such a date? Why is May 3 or May 31 not an acceptable date?
Mr. D'AMATO. That is a very valid point and question. Also, again,
when one looks at the contention that we have looked for an indefinite,
ad infinitum extension, that fails to take into account that we have
asked for a finite amount of money, up to $600,000. But if we get into
the situation where we cannot get certain witnesses, because their
lawyers seek--as has been spelled out in a book called ``Men of Zeal,''
where they talk about what happens if you fix a date for the end of an
investigation or the work of the committee. Exactly what we are
confronting today is what
[[Page S1430]]
our colleague, Senator Mitchell, the former Democratic leader, and
Senator Cohen warned us about: there will be lawyers who use the
deadline as a target time, and delay their clients from coming forward;
and there will be bureaucratic stalling. It is stated quite explicitly
in here. This is the result of hard deadlines.
He says: ``The committee's deadline provided a convenient stratagem
for those who were determined not to cooperate. Bureaucrats in some
agencies appeared to be attempting to thwart the investigative process
by delivering documents at an extraordinarily slow pace.''
My gosh, if that is not exactly what is taking place. We have
experienced that. If we want to guarantee that stratagem will continue,
just put on a date certain and we will see that take place.
Last, it says, ``perhaps more important, the deadline provided
critical leverage for attorneys of witnesses in dealing with the
committee on whether their clients would appear without immunity and
when in the process they might be called.''
We have key witnesses that we want to appear. And I joined with
Senator Sarbanes in trying to bring a key witness, Judge David Hale,
before the committee. Indeed, the Senator quotes a letter of October
2--but he does not read all of it--in which we said to the special
prosecutor, who objected to us calling Mr. Hale in, ``having determined
that the Senate must now move forward the special committee,'' we were
going to bring various witnesses in. ``We will, of course, continue to
make every effort to coordinate where practicable activities with those
of your investigation.'' We say ``we stand ready to take into account
consistent with the objectives set forth your views with regard to the
timing of such private depositions and public testimony of particular
witnesses.''
You have to read the whole letter to understand it and you have to
understand that there were briefings subsequent to this letter in which
counsel for the minority and the majority were advised as to the
problems related to bringing Mr. Hale in. If somebody wants to impugn
the motives of the committee for not bringing him in, I say why would I
not want to? I did not want, first, to have a situation where we
jeopardized the trial that would be taking place, which is starting
this coming week; and second, to have lost the opportunity, probably
for all times, to get the cooperation of Mr. Hale. I know that there
are some in this body who may not really want Mr. Hale to come in and
testify, because, indeed, if he testifies, as there have been
indications, that he was asked--or even more, told--to make a $300,000
loan to Susan McDougal by the then Governor, it would seem to me that
there are some who would not be very anxious for that to be uttered
publicly, in view of the American people.
I suggest that if that is anything, it is an indication of the
Senator's good will in not attempting--and lack of political
motivation--in not attempting to pull them in here and say the devil
may care, we do not care about that trial, I want somebody to come in
here and make accusations against the President and the First Lady. I
did not go in that direction. I think I chose to act in a responsible
manner in accordance with the request of the special counsel. Yes, I
wanted Mr. Hale to come in, but indeed the special counsel was able to
make a convincing argument, and I think we did the right thing.
What would they have said, what would this body have said if I asked
to immunize David Hale? They would have risen up, by the Democratic
leadership, calling me and accusing me of all kinds of things, and
would have said, ``What are you doing? You want to immunize a crook and
a thief to have him make accusations?'' Think about it. Come on. Let me
ask the question. What are you hiding? What are you afraid of? Why do
you not want the facts to come out?
The New York Times says that, and this is what most responsible
newspaper editorials are saying. When you suggest that we are asking
for an unlimited period of time, that is not what we say. We couch it
in terms of no more than or up to $600,000. But if we spell out, I say
to my friend, a specific time certain, by gosh, everything that has
taken place in terms of the procrastination, in terms of the documents
that find their way--oh, I just found it in this book. Can you imagine,
trained lawyers who are in charge of defending the White House giving
us this drivel--drivel--that they were not aware that the documents
were not turned over, documents setting out, tasking other members of
the White House at the highest levels, what to do as it related to
Whitewater.
This was the very man charged with the responsibility of mastering
and bringing the very forces together--Mr. Ickes, Deputy Chief of Staff
of the White House. I could just imagine if my friends and colleagues
were in the majority and that was the Bush administration, and that was
the manner in which their Chief of Staff was responding--Deputy Chief
of Staff--on a particular matter. We are not talking about one instance
or two instances. This is repeat; a pattern.
Want to talk about delay? We, unfortunately, were delayed for weeks
and weeks because we had to battle over documents being produced and we
had to vote subpoenas and come to the floor of the Senate. Who
occasioned that political debacle? Who is it that created that
political firestorm? We are always tested. Weeks and weeks and months
and months of negotiations behind the scene. My friend brings out and
says these subpoenas are so far reaching. He knows that those were,
indeed, the preliminary negotiations as it related to scope and
breadth. In only one case did we not agree upon the breadth and scope
of the subpoenas. We agreed on every other one of them.
It is disingenuous to come out and say officially they requested a
far-reaching subpoena. That happens and is part of the process in
negotiating. We did negotiate. The one exception was the case where we
had to come to this body and vote the enforcement of a subpoena and
then, miraculously, we get the documents on a Friday afternoon. It's
always on a Friday, by the way, most of these documents appear Friday
afternoons; they get the least press.
Want to talk about politics? Talk about politics in the White House
answers. When we ask for documents, let me tell you what the White
House, Mr. Fabiani of the White House says, ``Tell Senator D'Amato and
one of his fat cats to pay for the production of them.'' Is that the
kind of response that the Senate and the committee is entitled to when
we ask for electronic e-mail? ``Tell the Senator and his fat cats to
pay for it.''
Want to talk about crude political assassination? How about the team
that they had over there, Mr. Waldman, who was assigned a task to get
information, to get dirt, on Senator D'Amato, on White House time, and
then send it over to the Democratic Committee. Is that what we are
involved in? Want to talk about a low down kind of thing--that is fact.
That is fact.
Now, look, I never intended nor did I wish for this hearing, these
investigations, to go into the political season. Had we had cooperation
and had we been able to get some of the witnesses in, we would not have
to be asking for that. Had we not been precluded from some of the
witnesses we could have even made our request such that we will examine
only these witnesses that we have not had access to. I did not delay
the production of these documents. The committee was not responsible
for the miraculous production of the billing records that showed up in
the White House.
The fact of the matter is that we have encountered a far different
situation than has been promised to us. The President promises
cooperation. Those who carry out the President's wishes have stalled,
have delayed, have been engaged in dilatory tactics. I will at a
certain point in time elucidate on those and touch on those with
definiteness. If, indeed, they think that by the political attacks upon
the committee or upon the chairman that they are going to dissuade us
from doing our job, and that is to get the facts, they are wrong.
I suggest that we call a truce, call a truce to the politicization of
this, and say we will agree to get the facts and work together. We have
demonstrated we can do that. I have no doubt that some of my colleagues
are placed in a
[[Page S1431]]
very awkward position. I do not think they like what they are doing and
saying--some of the things that they say. I think they are almost
forced to do it. I think they are compelled to do it by an
administration that seems to be totally bent on keeping the facts from
coming to the people, an administration that says, ``We don't care.''
Why do you not care what the public thinks? Why are they not entitled
to the truth? What is it that lurks behind that stone wall that has
been constructed? We have not had cooperation.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask, then, that we go ahead and vote to
pass this resolution, stop the filibuster, find a way to get an
agreement to go forward with these hearings, find the information that
we need to draw the conclusion to the hearings. I think that can be
done. I hope we will seek to find that process. I yield the floor.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for some questions?
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I apologize to the Senator from New Mexico
but I indicated earlier I would be glad to yield for some questions, so
I would like to be able to do that.
Mr. DOMENICI. Absolutely.
Mr. LOTT. I yield to the Senator from Maryland for a question.
Mr. SARBANES. First, the Senator indicated, as I understood it, the
costs of the independent counsel were $12 million, is that correct?
Mr. LOTT. According to the information I have from the Congressional
Research Service, the total cost of Whitewater to that point is
$12,525,582. That is the congressional investigation plus the
investigation of Robert Fiske and Kenneth Starr to this point. I have
heard various estimates from several sources, all the way up to $25 or
$30 million, but that is the information I got from the Congressional
Research Service. If it is more than that, I would be glad to get that
information, but that is not what I have.
Mr. SARBANES. I just want to put on the record, because I think it is
important to keep it accurate if we can, that the GAO did a financial
audit. It does periodic financial audit reports. The audit report for
the period January 1994, which is when Fiske began, to March 1995, by
the GAO, was $14,600,000.
In addition, an estimate has been made from the period subsequent to
March 1995. In other words, April 1995 to January 1996. Based on the
level that they were following at the end of the previous period--and,
of course, the independent counsel has, in fact, intensified his
efforts, but that is not taken into account--that figure would be $11
million, which would give you a total of $25,600,000.
Mr. LOTT. I believe, to respond to that, we could probably argue back
and forth about what the accurate number is. The source that I have
here, Congressional Research Service, versus GAO. But I still say that
is probably just barely more than half what was spent on Iran-Contra.
And that is still less than what I understand was spent on Watergate.
So what is your point?
Mr. SARBANES. Of course Iran-Contra involved sending investigators
overseas, if you recall, both to the Middle East and to South America.
Mr. LOTT. It might have been easier to get what you are looking for
than what we experienced in the Whitewater. I do not know.
Mr. SARBANES. That is the next point I want to address. The fact of
the matter is the committee has now received from the White House
virtually everything that has been requested. There are a couple of
weeks----
Mr. LOTT. Voila. Maybe that is true. I do not know. I do not know if
the committee even knows that. All I do know is there has continued to
be this drizzle of information. The Senator surely feels discomforted
by the way documents have appeared in various places, at the White
House, in boxes at the Peace Corps, and Vice Chief of Staff.
Mr. SARBANES. Let me give one example. Gearan came before us and he
said this is how this happened. I thought it was a plausible statement,
frankly. I mean, Gearan said when he packed up to go over to the Peace
Corps his file was put in that box unbeknown to him and he did not find
it over there. When he found it he tried to get it back into the loop.
I think that is a plausible statement.
You have to judge it on your own. But the fact is, the documents have
been provided in the end. The fact that there was a deadline----
Mr. LOTT. Do we know that is all of them? There was another group of
papers that came to the committee just last week, 200 pages, not from
Gearan but from Ickes. If it were one example, or maybe two--but three?
I am not on the committee. The committee tells us, tells the Senators.
Is this all the documentation or not? I do not know. I am under the
impression there is reason to believe maybe there is more information
that we should try to obtain. Maybe there is information, even from the
independent counsel, that that might be available at some point. But we
are not even going to be able to look at any of that?
Mr. SARBANES. No; the independent counsel is not able to make his
information available to us, under grand jury requirements. Certainly
the Senator----
Mr. LOTT. That is the point. I assume at some point----
Mr. SARBANES. Are you suggesting we should transgress those?
Mr. LOTT. I am suggesting at some point his work will be completed
and some of what he has may, in fact, be available to the committee. I
do not know to what extent. But I am just expressing a concern about
how we just go ahead and wrap it up in 30 days and say we are done with
it when there appears to be--in fact, when I look at this, from what I
am hearing and what I have heard, it looks to me like the committee
really is just getting started with this work. You have not started
finding out some of the answers that are still pending out there.
I do not want to ask a whole series of questions. Maybe some more
will be asked by the Senator from New Mexico. But there are other
questions pending. You have not started to write the report. We do not
know what is going to be the result of this trial down there.
Mr. SARBANES. We got the Gearan notes. We held a day of hearings with
Gearan. We had nothing substantially new and the same thing happened
with Ickes. We got the notes. We held the hearing on both of them. In
both instances we received the notes and the hearings have been held.
Mr. LOTT. Is that a question or a statement?
Mr. SARBANES. No; it is a response to the point you just made.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think the Senator from New Mexico would
like to get into this with some questions and a statement. I yield the
floor at this time.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder, Senator D'Amato, would you answer the last
question? I am asking it of you now.
Mr. D'AMATO. Yes, the Gearan notes indicate quite a few things that
we did not know. They indicated----
Mr. SARBANES. Could I ask the Senator a question?
Mr. D'AMATO. They indicated an attitude of the Deputy Chief of Staff
and others, but certainly the Deputy Chief of Staff, that they were
concerned, very concerned. And they characterized in very descriptive
language what professionals, civil servants at the Justice Department,
were doing. And they did not like it. They did not say they are doing a
professional job. They said, in essence, they are working us over. He
is a bad guy. That is what we find in the Gearan notes.
We find a whole series of meetings that we were not aware of. No one
came in and told us that we met on this day and the next day and we met
in the morning and we met in the afternoon. Oh, no. We learned
thereafter that various tasks are given out. And I have reason to
believe, as it relates to the question that was asked, I say to the
Senator, by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Senator Lott,
that, indeed, there very well may be--and I would suspect there are--
substantial documents that have not been turned over to this committee
or that may have been discarded deliberately, particularly by that
team, that so-called Whitewater team. I cannot believe that we have
only received documents from a handful of them.
Where is it? Where are they? What happened to those tasks? What did
they do? What were their responses to
[[Page S1432]]
the tasks, very carefully enumerated? We will go through that.
Last, but not least, I think it is rather interesting that the First
Lady turns up at, I believe, the first meeting--I may be wrong--the
first meeting. And according to Mr. Gearan's notes: Oh, this looks like
a meeting I would like to attend or that I would be interested in.
No, let us not let it be said that these were just casual,
indifferent, that these were notes that had no meaning. They reflected
a pattern of concern, of fear, of absolutely disdain, in some cases,
for the work that professionals at the Justice Department were
undertaking.
So, to your question, Senator Domenici, they were very revealing and
revealed facts that we were not aware of, facts that we are still
pursuing.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise for just a few minutes today to
talk about this Whitewater issue. I will take very little time.
I think I should say to my friends on the other side of the aisle
that I believe they are making a very big mistake. I can tell you that,
if they intend to preclude us from bringing this resolution to the
floor and they intend to use that tool called filibuster, the American
people are going to get their ears and eyes filled with Whitewater.
However, it will not be in the records of the Whitewater Committee. It
will be here on the Senate floor, and, frankly, what they are going to
hear they are not going to like.
What they are going to hear is going to convince them, I say to my
friend from Maryland, that the reason this committee needs more time is
not because of Chairman Al D'Amato of New York taking too much time,
being too slow, not doing enough work, and not working the committee
and his staff hard enough. That is pure bunk. There are reasons why we
are still here and there are plain and simple reasons why we need more
time: This is about the toughest committee investigation you will ever
find.
Why? The first reason is because witnesses are telling half-truths
all over the place. Witnesses are losing their recollection in a way
which would make you think that a wave of amnesia has begun to affect
young people. Witnesses cannot remember anything. In fact, I cite the
testimony of just two of them. We had one witness, Josh Steiner. He was
the chief of staff for the Secretary of the Treasury at one point. This
young fellow claimed that he could not believe his own diary. Imagine
that.
So people had to spend time getting to other witnesses and bringing
them in to verify because he could not believe his own diary.
Mr. SARBANES. When was that hearing on Steiner?
Mr. DOMENICI. That was the very first part of the hearings.
Mr. SARBANES. When?
Mr. DOMENICI. Summer of 1994. I was there for that. So I know that.
Mr. SARBANES. Summer of 1994.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is what I was just told by counsel. That the
hearing took place 2 years ago has nothing to do with whether he should
believe what was in his diary. When we asked him, he had the diary put
in front of him.
There is also another one. There is April Breslaw. This is a good
one. This witness refused to even verify that her own voice on a tape
recording was actually hers. That is the kind of thing this chairman,
this committee, and the competent staff had to go through day after day
with White House witnesses.
Why do I say that to the American people? I guarantee you that is
what makes hearings go on forever. Hearings go on forever when you have
to bring in extra witnesses to verify facts, when you have to bring in
another witness to verify the verifier, and then some witnesses only
know part of the truth, and others do not remember anything. That takes
time. It takes energy. That takes competent legal counsel. That is one
reason--because the huge entourage of witnesses were about as difficult
as you will find in terms of volunteering information and getting it on
the Record, getting it straight, and getting it right the first time.
And the second reason we need an extension--it will come out in huge
panorama for the American people, if the other side chooses to
filibuster this--is that the White House and the White House staff are
more responsible than anyone else for this committee being unable to
get its work done. Let me tell you why.
It came as a shock when, after subpoenas had been outstanding for a
couple of years, all of a sudden just before a witness is supposed to
testify, they find documents in the White House. Let me tell you, that
makes for prolonged hearings. When that evidence should have been
available for months, Mr. Ickes finds 200 pages of evidence just before
he has to appear. These files and notes in some miraculous way all of a
sudden became relevant and responsive to the subpoena. That costs time
and exacerbates the delay. If that had been produced when it was
supposed to have been produced, it would have been analyzed and these
hearings could have been over with.
I am merely telling those listening just who is to blame for the
delay. And that is just a little part of this debate. But anyone who
blames the committee, the committee's chief counsel--counsel
extraordinaire, in my opinion--for this dilemma will find more things
in this Record to justify our committee and its counsel's competency
and ability than anybody has ever thought could be put before the
Senate.
If they want to bring Whitewater here and keep it on the Senate floor
for a week, then people are going to hear what happened in the course
of this investigation. It has been locked up in a committee. It will be
unlocked here before the American people, and they are going to pass
judgment, I tell you, Mr. President. And if the other side of the aisle
does not agree that this investigation ought to go forward, they are
harming our President. That is who they are harming, because it is not
going to go away. I do not know of a single Member on this side of the
aisle who thinks this is going to go away. And I would think, in
fairness, there are many on that side who know they ought to extend
this committee's work.
They can get up on the other side, whether it is my friend from
Maryland or whomever, and say, Senator D'Amato is asking for too much.
As I understand it, he is asking for $600,000, which is probably
between 3 and 4 months of effort at most, and then the committee would
run out of money. Why did he choose not to agree to a date certain?
Because he has now been informed by those who have undertaken
investigations before him that to agree to a date certain invites more
delays. So essentially this is not open ended because the committee
will be out of money soon--in 2 or 3 months.
I can recite lots of facts about the Whitewater investigation. I can
come down next time and give my friend, Senator D'Amato, a couple of
hours here. I will read some transcripts, and I will put them in the
Record, and we will see why it was so tough to get things accomplished
and why the investigation is not concluded. And we will see whose fault
it is.
But, frankly, I believe the Democratic leader ought to sit down with
the Republican leader, Senator Al D'Amato, and the distinguished
Senator from Maryland. They ought to decide and reach an agreement on
how we should continue these hearings.
But we should not take a week in this Chamber exposing what is going
on in these hearings, but I guarantee for those who want to do it, the
President is not going to win. The President is not going to win that
debate. If they think the American people are going to end up saying,
``Hurrah, hurrah, we should stop these hearings,'' let me tell you,
they are mistaken. They are going to end up saying, ``What's the matter
with that White House? What's the matter with all those people? And all
that time and effort spent at the White House on Whitewater. Something
is fishy.'' They are going to say, ``Something is being covered up.''
I came down to suggest that and to support the chairman. I happen to
be on this committee. I am not a long-time member. I have been here a
long time but not on the committee. But I think the committee has done
a very good job. I do not think that in the debate over this extension
that anyone ought to come down here and add onto this record
indications that the committee is in any way to blame for the delays
that have been caused.
I yield the floor.
Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
[[Page S1433]]
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator from Arkansas yield to me for just a
moment.
Mr. PRYOR. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. SARBANES. I wish to point out to the Senator from New Mexico that
this committee held 1 day of hearings in the last 9 days leading up to
the end of our time. The Iran-Contra Committee held hearings in 8 of
the last 9 days leading up to the end of its time.
Your leader, Senator Dole, with respect to the Iran-Contra Committee,
insisted that it have a timeframe because, he said, it would not be
fair to run that inquiry into the 1988 political year. The Democrats in
the Congress, led by Chairman Hamilton and Chairman Inouye from the
Senate, agreed with that. They provided a time limit, and then they met
almost around the clock over the last month. They held 21 days of
hearings in the last month in order to complete their work. Now, it was
your leader who pressed that case very hard. And the Democrats
responded to it, in all fairness. Now, this situation is in complete
contrast.
Mr. DOMENICI. I assume the Senator is asking for an observation or
comment on my part.
Let me say to my friend from Maryland, I just want to repeat, I do
not think that this committee has been intentionally dilatory. I do not
think for a minute that Senator Al D'Amato wants to use this to carry
it into the Presidential election. Frankly, I look back at the last 3
months and I kind of wonder how he was able to hold as many hearings as
he did. I look at what has happened in the Senate during most of that
time. We had more votes during a 2- or 3-week period than we have ever
had.
Mr. SARBANES. That is not accurate, I say to the Senator.
Mr. DOMENICI. I do not mean in the committee. I mean in December in
the Senate.
Mr. SARBANES. I understand. In January and February, when we urged
the committee to do an intensified schedule, when the Senate was not
holding floor sessions and not voting, over that 2-month period we held
only 15 hearings. The Iran-Contra Committee in a month's time held 21
hearings. So during that period, January and February--in other words,
the last 2 months of this committee's existence--
Mr. DOMENICI. We had a blizzard. Nobody could get around for a week.
Mr. SARBANES. The schedule ground down. It did not intensify. And
over the last 10 days we have only had 1 day of hearings.
Mr. DOMENICI. I almost welcome this, and I am not in a position to do
this right now, but if we continue this I will ask counsel for this
committee to prepare a work product evaluation for the last 90 days of
what the staff of this committee has gone through to try to get this
moving, and we will produce it here. And anybody who thinks there has
been intentional delay is truly not paying close attention to this
situation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, who has the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has the floor.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, let me also respond to my friend from New
Mexico.
Earlier in the afternoon, we did a very quick summary of what the
Senate has done in the year 1996 as compared to 1995. In fact, I do not
have that sheet before me, but I think we have had--if I am not
mistaken, I think the Senate this year, in 1996, has had 21 votes,
total. In 1995, we had had 97 votes up until this time. So basically,
the Senate, except for the Whitewater operation, has been pretty well,
let us say, called to a halt.
We have been waiting for all the primaries to get over, and we have
been accommodating. We have been cooperative, et cetera.
Also, I think earlier in the afternoon--I do not know if our friend
from New Mexico was here--talking about the lack of cooperation from
the White House--I hope, Mr. President, my friend will listen to this--
this committee has requested all documents covering an 18-month
period--listen to this, please--any communication of any kind relating
to any subject between the President, First Lady, any present or former
White House employee, and any employee of the RTC and several dozen
named individuals. The next group, the committee authorized a subpoena
asking for all telephone calls--I heard the Senator from New Mexico, my
friend, a while ago talking about his own area code. What is that area
code?
Mr. DOMENICI. 505.
Mr. PRYOR. 505. Arkansas is 501. The committee authorized a subpoena
asking for every telephone call from the White House in Washington, DC,
to any area code 501 number, the entire State of Arkansas, for a 7-
month period.
Third, they asked, above and beyond the committee's already overbroad
authorization, the majority staff unilaterally, unilaterally issued a
subpoena for all White House telephone calls from any White House
telephone or communications device for a 7-month period in 1993 to
anywhere in the country. This is the type of documentation the
committee is trying to force the White House to come up with.
Now, it is my understanding that the committee is trying to get all
of the e-mail messages from the White House. Well, I would say to my
friend from New Mexico, I think that this White House has been
extremely cooperative, and you know it was not just but a very few
years ago when, in September 1992, after a subpoena, after a subpoena
had been issued in the Iran-Contra affair, you might remember because
the Senator was certainly here at that time, as this Senator was
present, in September 1992, an administrative staff assistant, Patty
Prescott, found George Bush's diary, President Bush's diary which was
under subpoena. Where did they find it? They found it on the third
floor of the White House living quarters.
Even when the document was not delivered to the investigators, as the
subpoena called for--not delivered--Ms. Prescott told President Bush of
her discovery and said she believed it was relevant to the latest then-
counsel request. The President said he directed Ms. Prescott to have
the Presidential counsel at that time, C. Boyden Gray--we all
remember--``sort it out.'' That was December 1992, after the election,
after the election when Mr. Clinton had won and Mr. Bush had lost. I do
not think that the diary was ever turned over to the investigators. If
it was, I do not have any knowledge of it.
I do not recall my friend from New Mexico or my friend from New York
ever coming to the floor of this Senate and saying, ``Oh, my goodness,
this has been a terrible transgression; this has been a terrible
obstruction of justice.'' George Bush did not present his diary to the
subpoena's call and request for that diary.
So I just think we ought to put things in perspective. I think we
ought to talk about how this White House has cooperated--45,000 pages
of statements and testimony and records have been turned over from the
White House to this committee. They deposed 202 persons; 121 witnesses
have testified to this date before the Committee on Whitewater, and the
examination, as I have said, of thousands and thousands and thousands
of pages.
We on our side of the aisle think that we have proposed a reasonable
solution to this so-called impasse, a reasonable solution. April 3,
continue with our hearings until April 3, and then allow the Whitewater
Committee to, at that time, write a report and submit that report to
the Congress and to the public on its findings and any recommendations
that it might have.
Then after that, any and all information, I assume, would be turned
over to the special counsel, Mr. Kenneth Starr, who is in Little Rock,
AR. I am sure he would love to receive all of these truckloads of
information that will be driven from Washington, DC, down to Little
Rock and deposited in Mr. Starr's office, including all of the
telephone logs, all of the telephone records, and even the subpoena for
Chelsea Clinton's nanny. I am sure he would enjoy seeing that subpoena,
too.
It is my understanding that there is a whole new list now out that
the chairman wants to bring before the Whitewater committee, people who
have no way to pay their legal bills, people who have no way to pay the
costs of coming, mostly from Arkansas, to Washington, DC, and back.
Mr. President, I think we have to talk some sense into this matter. I
think we have made a reasonable offer. I am very hopeful that our
colleagues on the other side will consider that offer.
[[Page S1434]]
I have one other thing I wanted to place in the Record. But should my
friend desire to ask a question, I will yield for a question.
Mr. DOMENICI. First, let me just say that we are going to miss him
when he leaves the Senate.
Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Senator.
Mr. DOMENICI. I appreciate the manner and demeanor he uses in
situations like this. It is pretty obvious he has been a loyal friend
of the President for a long time. I respect him for that. Nothing I
said here on the floor had anything whatsoever to do with a lack of
cooperation. You can have cooperation, but what is the quality of the
information provided by those who are told to cooperate?
Frankly, I say to the Senator, I believe that when Mr. Ickes just
recently, 2 weeks ago, all of a sudden discovered 200 documents that
had been under subpoena for a long time, and going through the
transcripts and finding the large number of ``I don't remembers'' and
the number of people forgetting things that hardly anybody could
forget, not believing they are on tape recorders even if they are, and
saying, ``That is not me''--when you have all that, it is pretty
obvious that the committee is having difficulty getting facts and
getting to a conclusion.
It is in that context that I speak here today. Frankly, you all have
made an offer from the other side. You think it is reasonable. The
chairman and his legal counsel, who know more about it than I do, think
it is unreasonable. Somewhere between what you have presented and some
other proposition may be where we ought to end up.
But all I wanted the Senator to know is that there are a lot of
Senators on this side, who I think are fair-minded people and worried
about many of those staff and their legal bills. I read in the paper
about it. I am not one running around here saying they should not find
resources to help them. I know about that kind of stuff. I am for
trying to let them find resources to help with their bills. But that
does not mean this committee is to blame for the kind of slipshod
efforts that have gone on with reference to the type of cooperation
that the President obviously told them to give to this committee.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, if I may respond now that I have the floor.
I want to thank my friend from New Mexico. I have loved serving in this
body. I have enjoyed so much my service with the distinguished Senator
from New Mexico and the Senator from New York and my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle. It has been a hope and a dream that I have hoped
for all of my life. I have been one of the fortunate 1,800 and some odd
people who have had this great privilege. So I thank my colleague very
much.
But the Senator and several of our colleagues have made reference
during the discussion this afternoon of how many times witnesses
forget, how many times they say, ``I don't know'' or, ``I don't
recall.''
Let me ask my friend from New Mexico, what was the Senator doing 12
years ago? I am asking my friend, what was the Senator doing 12 years
ago today?
Mr. DOMENICI. Let us see, 12 years ago.
Mr. PRYOR. Yes, 12 years ago today. Does the Senator recall who he
talked to on the telephone?
Mr. DOMENICI. I was probably campaigning for reelection.
Mr. PRYOR. The Senator was probably campaigning, but he does not
recall specifically?
Mr. DOMENICI. If I had a chance to look at all my records and prepare
for a deposition, I probably could recall something.
Mr. D'AMATO. What if the Senator had a diary?
Mr. DOMENICI. Maybe if I had a diary. Everybody knows I do not have a
diary.
Mr. PRYOR. I was trying to bring brevity. Some of these events
happened 10, 12, 15 years ago, a decade ago, 6 and 7 and 8 years ago. A
lot of these people did not have an associate or maybe someone we might
call a staff person to keep a diary, to keep a phone log, to keep
records for them. And they are trying, to the very best of their
ability, to come up here and tell the truth as they know the truth.
Yet, many times they appear to be badgered before the committee day
after day. Sometimes they are attempting to answer the question, and
the counsel will not even give them that opportunity. I would just----
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. PRYOR. I would be glad to.
Mr. SARBANES. One of the things that is happening--and I think this
needs to be understood--is that we get notes and testimony, and then it
is treated as though it is some new discovery. ``Oh, we found out
something that no one knew anything about.'' For example, when Mr.
Ickes came in, a lot of focus was on the fact that there was this
damage control squad to deal with the Whitewater matter set up in early
1994 and that he was the head of it.
So this is treated in the hearings--and it has been done here on the
floor as well today--as a major revelation, a new sort of breakthrough
in discovery of facts that has been made.
This is from the Washington Post, January 7, 1994:
With the start of the new year, the White House launched a
major internal effort to fight back against mounting
criticism of the way it has handled inquiries into President
Clinton's Arkansas land investments. A high-powered damage
control squad was appointed under the direction of new Deputy
Chief of Staff, Harold Ickes, and daily strategy sessions
began.
This article was in January 1994, reporting on this matter. Then we
hold a hearing, we get these notes, and this is treated as though some
major revelation has been discovered.
Actually the report on February 16, 1996, reads:
Four days into the new year of 1994, top White House aides
gathered in the office of then Chief of Staff Thomas F.
``Mack'' McLarty for the first meeting of the Whitewater
response team.
You could take the story from January 1994 and the story written
after our hearing, and they are virtually the same. Yet this is
portrayed as though something new has been revealed or discovered. This
sort of process is going on all the time. Members need to understand
that. I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am going to yield in just a moment. I
have only a few more points I wish to make. I would like to read, if I
might, Mr. President, a few sentences from a February 15 editorial from
the Atlanta Constitution. This editorial begins by saying, ``The
Senate's Watergate hearings of 1973-1974''--Watergate hearings--``were
momentous, delving into White House abuses into power, leading to the
resignation of a disgraced President, and the imprisonment of many of
his aides. That lasted 279 days. Next week Senator Alfonse D'Amato''--I
want my friend to know that I am mentioning his name, and I do not want
him to think I am abusing his name; I am simply reading from the
editorial--``next week Senator Alfonse D'Amato, Republican, New York,
and his fellow Whitewater investigators, will surpass that mark.
Today,'' which was February 15, ``is the 275th day.''
The Watergate hearings went 279 days. And we have already surpassed
probably almost 280 days. ``And they have nothing anywhere near
conclusive to show for their labors. To put matters in context, all
they have to do is ponder a fairly obscure 1980's real estate and
banking scandal in Arkansas.''
Let me interject here, Mr. President. President and Mrs. Clinton made
an investment, and it went sour. They lost everything in that
investment that they made. I do not know what it was, $50,000 or
$60,000, $30,000. I am not sure how much they lost.
What would have happened had they made that much money in this
investment or had they made $500,000? We would have really seen a
momentous explosion. But they lost money, and they show that they lost
that money.
Reading further:
With the February 29 expiration date for the special panel
staring him in the face, D'Amato has the effrontery to ask
the Senate for more time and more money to continue drilling
dry investigative holes. Specifically, he wants open-ended
authority and another $600,000. That's on top of the $950,000
his committee has spent so far, plus $400,000 that was
devoted to a Senate Banking Committee inquiry into Whitewater
in 1994.
Mr. President, I conclude with the last paragraph of this editorial:
The First Couple is still under investigation by
independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, a former Reagan Justice
Department official
[[Page S1435]]
who can be expected to scrutinize the Clinton's legal and business
affairs rigorously. Any additional sleuthing by Mr. D'Amato
would be a waste of taxpayer money.
That comes from the Atlanta Constitution.
An editorial that appeared yesterday in, I believe, the Washington
Post states, and I read:
Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut reluctantly agreed
to renewal of the Senate Whitewater committee's expiring
mandates, suggesting limiting the extension to 5 weeks ending
April the 3rd. Along with the minority leader Tom Daschle and
other leading Senate Democrats, Mr. Dodd told reporters
yesterday that they were prepared to filibuster against any
extension beyond April.
Mr. President, there is no desire for anyone to filibuster this
legislation. We have offered a reasonable compromise, and that
reasonable compromise is to go to April 3 and then to allow a 30-day
period for a committee report to be sent out to the public and to the
Senate and to the Congress of the United States. We think that is fair.
We think that is reasonable. We think and we hope that proposal will be
given very careful consideration by our colleagues on the other side of
the aisle.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, and I will yield to my friend, Senator
Thomas, for some questions that he might want to pose, but before I
yield to him for the purpose of questions, let me say, we can all quote
editorials. My friend and colleague gave a viewpoint of a distinguished
newspaper, but let me say, if one were to look at the major newspapers
of this country, very clearly--and I am not talking about now the
opinions expressed by various pundit s, but rather the editorial
pages--you will find overwhelmingly, 5 to 1 or more, a clear pattern.
Those in the media who have been following this, like the American
people who have been following it have been supportive of our efforts.
And I'd like to add the manner under which we are compelled to
operate does not make our work quick or easy. That is, bringing in
witnesses, deposing them.
You cannot schedule 1 day after the other. You have to bring in
witnesses and examine them. Thousands of hours go into these hearings,
not just the hearings that are heard publicly, but in preparation for
them. Otherwise, we would have had many, many witnesses who came in
and, rightfully, the minority and, more important, the American people
would have said, ``Why are you bringing these people here? They have no
relevance.''
We have examined well over 100 witnesses--well over--and we will go
into that. This month alone, we have examined dozens of witnesses not
in a public forum. Many of them we will not call, because we have found
that they do not add to the investigation.
So it is not accurate to suggest that the committee has not been
diligent, notwithstanding that there may have been a period of time
when we have not had many public hearings.
Again, as it relates to the various editorials, I will speak to some
of them, but I will tell you that when you find most of the Gannett
chain, when you find the Los Angeles Times, when you find the New York
Times, when you find the Washington Post and others, for the most part,
supporting very clearly that the work of the committee continue, I
think it underscores the need for us to find the facts.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. D'AMATO. I am not going to. I want to take questions, but I want
to yield for some questions which I think Senator Thomas wants to----
Mr. SARBANES. Does the Senator read the Washington Post as supporting
his position?
Mr. D'AMATO. I read the Washington Post as taking a middle ground,
not one which I am totally unsympathetic with. And I also read the
Washington Post as saying extend but with limits. I disagree to the
limits for reasons I stated before.
I think it is noteworthy where they say:
The Senate Democrats would do themselves and the president
little good--
Let me read you the concluding paragraph where they say there should
be some extension, it is interesting, and I know my colleague, Senator
Thomas, wants to pose some questions:
What the Senate does not need is a Democratic-led
filibuster. Having already gone bail for the Clinton White
House, often to an embarrassing degree--
I think it is very interesting, because I think, indeed, that is what
many of my colleagues have been forced to do, to kind of walk the
plank.
Senate Democrats would do themselves and the president
little good by tying up the Senate with a talkathon. Better
that they let the probe proceed.
Then it goes on to say something rather interesting, that it is a
responsibility that all of us have, including this Senator and the
majority. It said:
Give the public some credit for knowing a witch hunt and a
waste of their money if and when they see one. And that, of
course, is the risk Senator D'Amato and his committee are
taking. The burden is also on them.
Mr. SARBANES. What about----
Mr. D'AMATO. Let me suggest that by simply saying this is politics,
this is politics, this is politics, this is politics, it reminds me of
the adage that if you repeat it over and over and over and over, you
will draw people from what it is we are doing. I think this is a well-
orchestrated attempt by the Democrats, by the minority, to have just
that, to have us forget the paper trail, to have us forget the
witnesses who deliberately --Senator, I will yield to you when I am
ready to yield to you. Senator, I have not interrupted you once.
Mr. SARBANES. Yes, but you are----
Mr. D'AMATO. I watched you now for quite a period of time. I have not
interrupted you. When I yield the floor, then you can ask whatever
questions you wish. If I am here, I will attempt to answer them.
The fact of the matter is that there has been a persistent pattern of
delay, obfuscation and deliberate memory loss. When this matter gets to
the floor next week, we will go through it.
We will go through, for example, incidents where Mrs. Clinton, the
First Lady, right after the death, or soon after the death of Vincent
Foster, makes a phone call to Susan Thomases. Susan Thomases comes in
and testifies to us she does not recall the phone call.
By the way, this is on, I believe, July 22. I will have the record in
front of me. This is after the death, and they are now going to conduct
the investigation as it relates to what papers may or may not be in Mr.
Foster's office, looking for possibly a suicide note. She would have
the committee and the American people believe--I think it is absolutely
incredible--that at 7:57, a phone call from Little Rock, AR, made by
the First Lady to her hotel, that she did not get it. The First Lady
was on the phone for 3 minutes. ``Maybe the operator got it.'' At 8:01,
1 minute after that, she admits to paging Mr. Nussbaum.
Let me tell you why she admitted it, because she would have feigned
recollection there, too, in my opinion. You see, because Mr. Nussbaum
had an assistant, and that assistant indicated Mr. Nussbaum said Susan
Thomases called him, so she could not very well deny that call. But,
believe me, if there was any way for her to do it, she would have done
it. This is one of the most capable lawyers in America, described as a
lady who has the ``juice.'' ``She has the juice,'' they said. She walks
into the White House whenever she wants. She is a close confidant, a
friend, a counselor. Guess what Mr. Nussbaum's assistant, Mr. Neuwirth,
says in depositions and testimony? He says--I am paraphrasing, but we
will get it on the record with absolute precision because I know my
colleague wants that. We will get that absolute precision.
The First Lady was not happy. The First Lady was not happy with the
manner of investigation, that there would be unfettered access into Mr.
Foster's office. We asked about that call and, of course, remember, we
have absolute proof, phone logs--if we did not have the phone logs,
they would deny anything and everything. I will give you examples of
this. As Senator Domenici has indicated, I am not going to just sit
here and have those who would take our work and our good efforts and
simply attempt to politicize them for their own purposes. That is my
observation. I think they ought to be ashamed of themselves for doing
that. We have worked together too long and hard in a spirit of
bipartisanship. But if they want to throw that out and just do the
bidding of the
[[Page S1436]]
White House and carry their water, that is their decision. As the
Washington Post said--and I just quoted that editorial--``to almost an
embarrassing degree.''
Let me tell you, when we asked Mrs. Thomases about this call--she
said she was reaching out. It was a touchy-feely call. When we asked
about the other calls she made--and there were 13 or 14 within a hour
and a half--to Nussbaum, calls to the Chief of Staff office, almost
frantic. She was reaching out to touch someone. There is an ad about
that. By the way, we have not been able to examine her yet. Only
because we received logs and notes that indicate she had a
communication from Mrs. Clinton's scheduler saying, ``Come down to
Washington to see us,'' and she did come; the only reason we know she
went over to see her is because the White House logs maintained by the
Secret Service indicate that. Lawyers were meeting--a lawyer--Mr.
Barnett was meeting with Mrs. Clinton to review various documents, and
documents were indeed turned over to Mr. Barnett on that date. We said,
``Did you recall meeting Mrs. Clinton?'' She was upstairs for an hour
and a half. I believe that date was July 27, but I have not looked at
the records for a while. ``No.'' ``Did you meet with Mrs. Clinton?''
``I do not recall.'' ``Did your scheduler tell you?'' ``I do not
recall.''
Look, that is absurd. We are not talking about incidental events. We
are talking about critical times and junctures. We are talking about a
pattern. That is what we see taking place. So we have not been dealt
with fairly. We have not had candid testimony from numerous witnesses.
The pattern continues. And there are those who say, ``Why are you doing
this?'' I say, why are you afraid of getting the facts? The only reason
I am forced to editorialize, or at least sum up what I see at this
point in time, is because of the opposition of the other side to permit
us to do our work. So that, then, puts me in a very peculiar and
difficult position, one that I have resisted in terms of making these
observations public and making them with more precision and
preciseness. But we will do that. We will have no choice but to do
that. We will have no choice but to decide, when we do not have all of
the facts--and that is why we are making a mistake by pushing this at
this point in time, instead of saying, OK, we will permit x numbers of
dollars, and let us see if we cannot wind this up within a reasonable
period of time after you get access to the necessary witnesses,
particularly those who may or may not be called to testify but that the
special prosecutor objects to.
I see my friend wants to raise a question. Certainly, if he wants to
raise that question, I will take it.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, let me say, first of all, that I enter
into this debate and discussion from a little different point of view.
I have not been a member of this committee, and I have not indeed
followed it real closely. But I am very interested in it. I understand
there is a purpose for this committee action. The purpose is to
discover what the facts are. So I am a little surprised when they argue
that we ought to stop, put a limit on it, when we have not completed
what the purpose of it was, which was to find facts.
I must tell you that I did have a little brush with it in the House
last year. I was on the Banking Committee. Somebody talked about Mr.
Gonzalez's report. He would not let us do anything last year. We were
stonewalled. So I was excited when the Senate went forward with an
opportunity to do something. I know a little about that because I was
there. So I say I am surprised, and I am not sure I should be
surprised. I know that the minority sort of acted like defense counsel
here instead of asking questions.
I do have a couple of points. Mr. President, if I might ask, I am
curious about the work of the independent counsel and its effect on the
committee's work specifically and if the criminal investigations into
Whitewater have impeded the congressional efforts to get all the facts
about Whitewater.
Mr. D'AMATO. As my distinguished colleague may be aware, the Senate
resolution that empowered us to go forward indicated that we should
coordinate our activities with the investigation of the counsel. We
have attempted to do that.
Mr. THOMAS. What about the October 2, 1995, letter Senator Sarbanes
made reference to yesterday? Is it the special committee's intention to
move forward without regard to the independent counsel's investigation?
Mr. D'AMATO. I am glad my colleague has raised that point. I think
one has to read the letter in its entirety, not just part of it. It was
our very real intent to bring forward and to move in an expeditious
manner with these hearings, but never without regard to the independent
counsel's investigation. Even in that letter of October 2--which does
not contain the totality of our discussions either with the independent
counsel or with the minority--indicates that we were going to be very
mindful of the independent counsel's efforts. That letter, if you read
it in its totality, indicates we are going to be very mindful of not
impacting on the special counsel's work adversely.
Mr. THOMAS. It is my understanding that there are criminal trials
pending. Could the Senator share with us the timetable with respect to
these trials?
Mr. D'AMATO. Again, I appreciate my colleague's inquiry because we
are now talking--by the way, in our letter, we expressed some concern
that this trial would be adjourned much longer than the beginning of
the year. They indicated they thought January and possibly early
February. That is going to be going off next week. We are there at that
point.
There have been other delays. It just seemed to us that as time went
along, as we attempted to bring in Judge Hale, in particular meeting
with the difficulties of Judge Hale's lawyer--the distinguished counsel
had a number of arguments before the Supreme Court. He told our counsel
that he could not even consider bringing his client in because he had
to prepare him, and he would not be able to prepare and be thoroughly
briefed until after he made these arguments. One of those arguments was
postponed due to the snowstorm we had.
I have to tell you that we are making every effort. It was unusual,
almost unheard of--the Supreme Court's adjournment of a matter that had
been docketed and set for schedule. But the Court found that the
circumstances were so difficult that they granted an adjournment.
People could not make it in, participants in that case. That was put
off until the end of January or very early February.
That is a practical matter that made it impossible for him to prepare
the witness, to bring him in. We were just not ever able to get that
concurrence. Notwithstanding that, we might have had strong objection
because the independent counsel did indicate he was opposed. We were
still willing to attempt to bring him in.
Let me say this to you. Once we began to hit February, the end of
January, February, you then run into a question of responsibility of
this body in conjunction with and cooperation with the independent
counsel. You really do. We could have insisted that the attorney
formally raise the fact that his client would assert the privilege
against self-incrimination.
There is something more important. Rather than run the risk of
jeopardizing--because we were so close to that trial, so close to the
proposed trial of March--putting that off or creating an impediment to
the special counsel going forward. I think in a responsible way we did
what was absolutely necessary and did not attempt to create a clash or
a crisis with the prerogatives that we had, which we could have
exercised, but I think would have been injudicious.
Mr. THOMAS. As I understand it, the proposal that has been brought
forth is to conclude the special committee's work in the middle of
April and the possibility of examining either Governor Tucker or the
McDougals, then, would not be possible, is that correct?
Mr. D'AMATO. That is absolutely correct. It would be impossible, and
we may or may not be able to get them in any event. That would
certainly preclude the examination of McDougal and would preclude us
from even considering whether we might want to immunize him, to get his
testimony, whether or not the special counsel might agree after that
trial to us providing them with immunity, and also other witnesses,
Judge Hale and about a dozen others who may or may not be testifying.
[[Page S1437]]
Let me say, it has been indicated that there is going to be public
testimony at this trial. The scope of the trial--given that it is a
criminal trial, and given the rules of evidence--will not permit the
kind of latitude that would give a full, detailed story as to what did
or did not take place. Indeed, there may be testimony that we seek or
require that will never be asked of these witnesses at a public trial.
Indeed, all the questions may be answered. We may have no need to
bring some of them in. We may not have to. But to prejudge it now and
to say that we are going to cut it off now is wrong. It is wrong. We
should not set an arbitrary time limit for it.
Mr. THOMAS. I thank the chairman, and I certainly want to
congratulate you and your committee for continuing to seek to find the
answers. That is what this is all about. I certainly hope we continue
to do that.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Could I ask my friend from New York a question?
Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Senator from New York has led, as
chairman of the Banking Committee, the extraordinary responsibility of
this body relative to the Whitewater investigation. I ask my friend
from New York, as a consequence of what I understand is accurate to
date, the investigations have led to nine convictions and seven
indictments, which is reason to believe that more may still be coming.
Two indictments occurred just last week.
Now, in conscience, how could the chairman suggest to this body, as a
consequence of this factual information, to terminate these hearings or
even indicate a definitive date at which time these hearings might be
concluded? I think that my colleague would agree that the work of the
Whitewater Committee is clearly not done, the investigation is not
complete. The primary reason for its incompleteness is the inability of
the White House to present factual material in a timely manner. It has
been suggested that some of the material provided by the White House
comes in like a haystack, but the needles--the information that the
committee really needs--is missing.
I ask my friend from New York, how can those that object to the
continuance of this very important process conceivably reflect on the
collective responsibility we have as a body? My question to the Senator
from New York is, how do you see your responsibility as chairman of
this committee? How do you see the responsibilities have been given to
you? And, without all the facts before the committee, how can you reach
a definitive deadline such as April?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BENNETT). The Senator from New York.
Mr. D'AMATO. I thank my friend and colleague. The Senator from Alaska
has served on the committee and knows and has felt the manner in which
the committee in many cases has been almost stifled.
I think the point is inexorable. I do not think the Senate could
possibly discharge its duties by truncating or terminating its work by
setting an arbitrary deadline, one that particularly would ensure that
we would not have access to a number of witnesses whose testimony may
be very key, and as a result of relevant information and facts it leads
you to possibly other facts that one must discover, other areas that
one must look at.
That is why I think any thoughtful analysis of the committee's work,
where we are today, would lead one to believe, as Senator Mitchell once
indicated very clearly in his book, ``Men of Zeal,'' do not put an
arbitrary end date for any hearing, even if the intent--and I am
paraphrasing--is to avoid partisan politics. That was the intent in
Iran-Contra, not running it into the political season. That was my
intent. That was the intent of the distinguished ranking member.
There is no doubt, I hope he would not have questioned, or did not
question, the sincerity of the Senator from moving forward in that
manner. That was my intent. That continues to be my intent.
I also suggest that it seems to me that I do not know how my
colleagues can know for certain what may be revealed or may not be
revealed. I do not think they can. I do not think they know the
documents that may or may not have been produced. I do not think that
they are aware of what the testimony of various witnesses we would like
to bring in will be, but certainly it would appear that the White House
is very intent, and my colleagues are intent, in order to protect
them--and I am paraphrasing the New York Times editorial--to protect
them from embarrassment.
It is better to get the facts out now and let the chips fall where
they may than to continue this exercise in this matter. It will not
dissuade the chairman and the committee from doing its job by simply
charging partisan politics. That has not been the case. It will not be
the case. I will move as expeditiously as the events and facts permit
to end the work of this committee, particularly the public hearings,
but that will be based on facts, not an arbitrary date.
I answer my colleague in saying we should not set an arbitrary date.
It is exactly the situation we find ourselves in today. By the way, if
we reflect on the words, and I read them half a dozen times today, that
our friend said--the parallel between what took place then, bureaucrats
holding back information, looking at a date in which the inquiry would
terminate, attorneys keeping their clients from coming forward, et
cetera, and delaying and obfuscating--it is the same pattern that we
see repeating itself. It is, I think. I am sorry that I agreed to a
date. I did not contemplate that this would take place.
Now, you never get credit from the other side in attempting to be
fair. You just do not. But I will attempt to be fair and to say to
them, not all of this has been occasioned by some kind of a diabolical
political plot by my colleagues or the Democrats or the White
House. That would be unfair. Some has been occasioned by attorneys who
are looking to protect their clients. And, so, they have engaged in a
pattern, it seems to me, of withholding, having them testify in that
manner. At least the clients have insisted upon it, or maybe witnesses,
who said I cannot recall anything.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me commend the Senator for accepting the
responsibility of responding to such a wealth of questions. I know that
it is your desire and sense of real obligation to get to the bottom of
this investigation so we are all satisfied that the investigation was
done fairly, appropriately, and in depth. But I wonder if my friend
from New York recalls a comment of one of our colleagues during the
Iran-Contra debate? Our good friend, Senator Byrd, said:
The Congress has a Constitutional responsibility of
oversight, a Constitutional responsibility of informing the
people. . . [T]o reassure the faith of the American people in
the Constitutional and political system, is to find out about
all of these things that we have been hearing, and the way to
do it is to go at it, put our hand to the plow, and develop
the facts.
Now, I think that sets a pretty good direction for the committee. I
think we all know that the constitutional process is going to take
time. It is going to take expense. Also, I think that it is important
for my friend to consider the recommendation of certain editorials--so
I ask if my friend from New York would comment on two editorials. I
will quote a portion from the Washington Post, February 15, 1996:
Hardly a day goes by without someone in the administration
suddenly discovering some long-sought subpoenaed documents. .
. The committee clearly needs time to sift those late-
arriving papers.
And, in the New York Times, February 28, 1996:
The Senate's duty cannot be canceled or truncated because
of the campaign calendar. Any certain date for terminating
the hearings would encourage even more delay in producing
subpoenaed documents than the committee has endured since it
started last July. . . .
No arguments about the politics on either side can outweigh
the fact that the White House has yet to reveal the full
facts about the land venture. . . . Clinton's work as a
lawyer on Whitewater matters and the mysterious movements of
documents between the Rose Law Firm, various basements and
closets and the Executive Mansion. The committee, politics
notwithstanding, has earned an indefinite [an indefinite]
extension. A Democratic filibuster against it would be silly
stonewalling.
I ask my friend from New York, recognizing the statement of the
former majority leader and our good friend, Senator Byrd, regarding his
statement of the Iran-Contra dispute, is not the
[[Page S1438]]
same constitutional application and principle appropriate in this case?
Should not that same constitutional application be used as we search
for the facts and attempt to reach a final conclusion so that the
American people as well as the Congress can be satisfied in this
matter?
Mr. D'AMATO. The Senator from Alaska is absolutely correct. He is
absolutely correct. I think our colleague, Senator Faircloth, has
indicated there should be no price placed upon the integrity of the
White House.
The fact is, the cost for the hearings, and given the work, the
witnesses, the volume of work, sifting through the haystack to attempt
to get the needles--it has been difficult. The lack of cooperation of
various witnesses; the lack of cooperation with various agencies; the
lack of cooperation and candor with many, many officials; total failure
to recollect events, even though the diaries put them at various places
doing various things; even the transmittal of documents when occasioned
by distress calls.
I have to tell my colleague that the committee's work must continue
and that we have limited it, both initially and now, to very modest
sums. Although $600,000 is a lot of money, if we look at the Iran-
Contra investigations and hearings--and again those were almost 10
years ago--that cost was $3,300,000. I think it was $3,298,000 at that
point in time. If we were to get this appropriation, and I believe we
will, we would still have spent less than $2 million.
I am not suggesting that is not a considerable sum. But I am
suggesting that the work that we have done, the charge and the
responsibility, is important. And in the words of Senator Byrd, it
should be continued. It is our ``constitutional responsibility.''
Certainly it was true then and it is true now. Certainly Congress met
its responsibility in fully funding the Iran-Contra hearings.
Again, if we look at the words of two of the Members who served on
that committee, they said they made a mistake by setting an arbitrary
date for concluding the hearing. I think it is disingenuous for people
to say--by the way, I understand it comes out of the White House spin
doctors--that $30 million has been spent. And we have heard it here
today. ``Do you know how much food that could buy? Do you know how many
people that could help?''
This committee has not spent $30 million. The work of the independent
counsel was decided upon by none other than the President of the United
States and the Attorney General. They requested that the independent
counsel undertake his work and there have been 11 or 12 convictions or
pleas of guilty. And he does continue his work. He has one capacity.
That is to ascertain criminal wrongdoing and to prosecute it where it
is found. We have another. To simply lump it in and then say to the
American people, ``This is politics, and they are spending all this
money in search of we know not what it is,'' I simply have to say that
is not correct. And it is not factual. And it is not dealing with our
colleagues in a fair and even-handed manner, in the same manner in
which they would like to be dealt with.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. May I ask my friend from New York a question, since
partisanship has been brought up here more than once or twice in the
discussion? Would my friend from New York care to enlighten the Senator
from Alaska on what is the objective of our friends on the other side
of the aisle? Why do you believe that the other side of the aisle is
delaying the majority from bringing this matter before the Senate for a
vote? Wouldn't you agree that we are all here collectively to meet our
obligation of finding the facts and presenting them to the American
public? What could be more political than for one party to ban together
in an attempt to delay a vote? I am sure that is of some frustration to
my friend from New York. Would he convey, in the graciousness of the
cordiality that we are all bound by, why this body is being prevented
from bringing this resolution to the floor?
Mr. D'AMATO. I have to say to my colleague and friend from Alaska,
politely, I can not understand what my Democratic colleagues hope to
accomplish by extended, protracted debate--which is a filibuster. That
is a nice way of talking about filibustering this. It will only conjure
in the minds of people the question: What are you hiding and why are
you doing this?
I think the Washington Post, although it did not say, today, that we
should go on endlessly--nor do I believe we should--they said, today,
that ``The Senate Democrats have already gone bail.'' That is pretty
tough language. Listen to this.
``What the Senate does not need is a Democratic led filibuster,
having already gone bail for the Clinton White House, often to an
embarrassing degree.''
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on this editorial?
Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly.
Mr. SARBANES. Because the Senator continues citing it, yet the
editorial very clearly states the Senate should require the committee
to complete its work and produce a final report by a fixed date. That
is the essential difference between the two sides.
You want an indefinite hearing, and we have suggested that there be a
fixed date, just like I say to the Senator from Alaska there was in
Iran-Contra, which is exactly the position that Senator Dole took at
that time and which was acceded to by the Democratic Congress. This
editorial is consistently being cited by my colleague from New York,
and yet the editorial says, in very clear terms, the Senate should
require the committee to complete its work and produce a final report
by a fixed date, a matter with which the Senator, as I understand it,
disagrees.
Mr. D'AMATO. I indicated heretofore that I would not--and I again
cited none other than an authority on this than Senator Mitchell as to
why a fixed date I believe would be counterproductive. Having said
that, certainly April 3 is absolutely unacceptable, or April 5--is
guaranteed to deny us essential information and evidence that we would
need. There is no way that trial will be concluded.
Let me say something else. I would be willing to say that at some
reasonable period of time after the conclusion of the trial, whether it
results in whatever--an acquittal, a conviction, or a hung jury--that
we then, because there are practicalities, an attempt to end this,
whether it is 8 weeks thereafter, that we would, and then a time for
the writing of a report. But even that is dangerous because then we run
into the problem of having certain attorneys looking to take advantage
of every opportunity to run the clock.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask my friend from New York, is it not a fact that
on February 17 the committee received notes of important substance from
Mr. Gearan? And, isn't it true that on February 13, the committee
received Michael Waldman's notes, which totaled over 200 of
information? In addition, isn't it true that the committee received
Harold Ickes' documents, which totaled over one hundred pages? That was
just 8 days ago.
How could the committee possibly evaluate that information? How could
the committee possibly be expected to set a definitive date of when
this investigation will be completed when we received subpoenaed
information only 8 days ago? Do you not believe that this task is
virtually impossible knowing that we have every reason to believe there
is other material going to come in?
I ask my friend from New York if he would feel that he is acting
responsibly if he sets a definitive date of when the investigation
would end, knowing that 8 days ago the committee just got several
hundred more pages of information? How long does it take the
professional staff to go through that information, and how long does it
take the staff of the minority side of committee to examine that
information?
Mr. D'AMATO. It would be impossible to give a date exactly, because
the Senator is right: We have to go through the information and bring
in people. It may develop--and does in many cases--additional leads and
additional people.
I have to tell you. I do not believe that we have received nearly all
of the pertinent information that we have requested, or subpoenaed, or
that has been subpoenaed by the special counsel. I just do not believe
that to be the case. I think it is impossible to believe that other
members of that White House defense team, that strategy team that met
during the early week of
[[Page S1439]]
January--they met under extraordinary circumstances, they met
repeatedly, they met every day for a 1-week period of time, and
thereafter--that there is not more information that was available that
has not been turned over to this committee.
If we set a time, I have to tell you something, I do not think we
will ever get it. If we do not wait to see what takes place in terms of
that trial and what witnesses we may or may not have, we are never
going to get all the facts. I never knew that a committee ran just
simply on the basis of a time line. I thought that our obligation was
to get the facts. I thought that was what determined. And if we were
doing a credible job, if we were getting the facts, that we would
continue until the picture was completed, until the job was completed,
if it took additional resources. That is why we are here. We are here
for those resources.
Let me say that we did not say ``give us such funds as may be
necessary.'' So you see when we say there is not a definitive date,
that is true. But we have asked to limit it to an amount of money. That
amount of money will only enable us to go approximately 3, maybe 4
months if there is no real activity, and if we have to suspend during a
period of time, maybe somewhat longer. Indeed, if there is no
justification--and I suggest it has been the action of the White House
and their people in terms of holding back documents, that has brought
us to this point where we suspect, and I think we have reason to
suspect, that they are still withholding key documents and information
from the Senate.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Along those lines, I would ask my colleague from New
York if he can explain to me why throughout the testimony of Susan
Thomases and Maggie Williams there seemed to be significant memory
losses. I am particularly thinking of Maggie Williams, the chief of
staff of the First Lady--she responded some 140 times, ``I do not
remember.'' These are people that were in positions of responsibility,
and, obviously, very intelligent people. These were significant events
in their lives. And to suggest that Maggie Williams had no recollection
140 times is troubling to this Senator. Also troubling is the fact that
Susan Thomases, the First Lady's friend and adviser, told the committee
``I do not remember'' over 70 times.
My friend from New York is a lawyer who has practiced and who knows
something about the procedures in the court. What kind of an
explanation can you provide for Maggie Williams responding 140 times
``I do not remember'' to questions from the committee? And what kind of
explanation can you provide for Susan Thomases telling the committee
that she ``didn't remember'' over 70 times? I find that very
discomforting because, obviously, it suggests that there are questions
that witnesses are refusing to answer. I know the chairman sat through
every single witness and was troubled by this as well.
Mr. D'AMATO. The Senator is absolutely correct. Of course, you see
that you could ask. If you were to say, ``Where were you, Senator, on
last week on Tuesday,'' I could not tell you now. I would have to look.
But when you have key events, monumental, the death of a trusted
friend, someone you have known for a long time, someone who you have
worked with, and you get some of the testimony surrounding that event,
surrounding the search for something that was important, the possible
suicide note, to have the kind of statements ``I do not recall.'' ``I
do not know.''
``Who did you speak to?"
``I do not know.''
``Did you speak to anybody?"
``I do not know. I do not remember. It would have been any" --it is
just inconceivable. It smells of a well-orchestrated plot to deny the
committee the facts and the information. And it is not just once; it is
repeated.
Then when we find--and, again, very troubling--documents that relate
to the work of the First Lady, documents that relate to her
representation, or at least the fact that there were numerous phone
calls to Seth Ward, Seth Ward, a man who purchased the property known
as Casa Grande, Seth Ward, Webb Hubbell's father-in-law, Associate
Attorney General, his son-in-law is in that law firm. It is interesting
the son-in-law did not represent or make the phone calls with respect
to his father-in-law who he was close to, a transaction that can be
described as nothing less than a sham, that attempted to provide Seth
Ward, in the final analysis, with over $335,000, and finally had to
agree to give back to the RTC. One has to say, was it that
representation, or those phone calls which we were never aware of until
we found the billing records? And where were the billing records of
phone calls between Mrs. Clinton and Seth Ward? In the personal
residence of the President and the First Lady, in their personal
residence. How about that? Are we to believe some construction worker
picked them up someplace? Where did they pick them up, and where did
they get to where they got, the President's personal residence, in
August, just when the RTC was again releasing a report dealing with
these events?
So it is very troubling. It is very troubling and it raises
questions. Maggie Williams, you see, was seen, at least by the
testimony of Officer O'Neill, a career Secret Service officer, who
would have no reason to concoct a story, says that on the night of
Vincent Foster's death he saw Maggie Williams coming out of Vincent
Foster's office--and she admits she was there--and that she was
carrying papers, files. And he remembers with great detail, that when
she, Maggie Williams, who is Mrs. Clinton's chief of staff, attempted
to gain access to her office, she could not do it; she had to balance
the files with one hand and then with the other hand open her door.
You see, this is an experience I think probably many of us have had
when you are carrying something and then you have to shift it. And he
said she propped it up against the wall or a cabinet so that she could
then use her other hand to open the door. That was a specificity that
made it hard for this Senator to not totally believe Officer O'Neill.
Let me tell you, the saga continues, the saga of the memory lapses,
because Maggie Williams denies that this occurred.
But then there is another White House staffer, a young man who works
there as an assistant by the name of Tom Castleton. He still works
there. This is not someone who is in discord with the administration.
This is not a partisan--if anything, he may be a partisan supporter of
the White House. And there is nothing wrong with that. But he has no
reason to lie.
What does he testify? He testifies that when Maggie Williams is
carrying a box of documents up to the personal residence of the White
House, she says, ``Mrs. Clinton wants to review these papers.'' When we
asked Maggie Williams, she didn't say that; she has no memory of that.
Why would she say that? She would never tell this young man that for no
reason. After all, of course, he told us the truth. He had no reason to
make this up.
Let me ask something else. It has always mystified me why it is
people have to invent incredible stories. Would it not be ordinary, if
papers that belonged to you, that were with a trusted friend and a
legal advisor, that you would look them over as opposed to simply
having them turned over to another attorney without looking?
I find that very difficult, very difficult to understand. It would
seem to me that if the Senator had important papers entrusted to his
legal advisor and counselor and something has suddenly gone wrong and
those papers were packaged and sent to your residence so you could then
send them over to your personal lawyer, would you not look through
them? Would it not be natural? Would it not be correct? Would it not be
right? But you see what happens when people invent stories; they are
stuck to them. They are stuck to them. Once the White House issued the
statement, a definitive statement, that the First Lady had, never
looked at those papers, they could never explain how the papers that
were sent up there found their way back down, and then, if all of those
papers were sent over to Mr. Kendall, the lawyer for the Clintons, if
all of them were sent over, then how could it be that the billing
records were found in the personal residence, if you had already said
for the public record, public consumption, that you never looked at the
records?
So now we have the mystery of the appearing documents. Where are they
found? In the personal residence, where all the papers had been brought
initially, all of them, and, I would suggest
[[Page S1440]]
to you, probably including the billing records. And that, indeed, when
we have heard this troubling story--because I tell you it would be
absolutely totally reasonable for anybody, President or anyone--to look
through their personal files and their personal records. I think that
it would be unusual, unusual, absolutely unusual--after all, they had
nothing to fear. There was no wrongdoing. Why would you not look
through the papers to ascertain if these were papers, indeed, that
should be then sent over to a new lawyer. Would you not want to look at
them?
So the answers that are forthcoming do not in many cases lead to a
conclusion. They raise other questions. But let me say our mandate is
to get the facts. It is not to rush to judgment. It is only because--
and I have only shared this for the first time--of some of the
questions that I consider important, some of the troubling aspects,
that I raise this. I have not raised this heretofore. I have not shared
this with the media. I have not rushed to judgment, nor do I. But I
raise this question--and there are others--in light of testimony given
by witnesses who have nothing to gain, who, if anything, are supporters
of the administration. Neuwirth, assistant counsel to the chief counsel
of the United States, he says they are concerned about unfettered
access, that Mrs. Clinton was concerned. This young man, Tom Castleton,
who says Maggie Williams, Mrs. Clinton's chief of staff, says that Mrs.
Clinton wants to review these documents. Then the White House states
that they did not look at these documents. Then the billing records
appearing. How did they get there?
So there is more work to be done. I do this--and I was not happy
about having to raise these questions at this point in time--only
because, again, the assertions have been made that our investigation
has not revealed anything, that this is a waste of time and a waste of
taxpayers' money.
Let me conclude by saying I believe that the committee has been
patient, in some cases overly so; that the committee has gone out of
its way to give the benefit of the doubt, as we should and will
continue to do, to witnesses and in certain instances when evidence has
not come forth when it should. We will say, let us conclude our job,
get the facts, and that is when we will end the investigation, sooner
rather than later.
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, unlike my colleague, I will be brief. I will be to the
point as nearly as I can. I have been standing now for 1 hour and 20
minutes on the floor of the Senate to try to get a word in edgewise,
and I recognize that when someone has the floor, they can literally
keep it forever. I was prompted to come here by some remarks that I
heard by my friend and colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, a
couple of hours ago when I happened to hear him say that the only way
to resolve the problem before us is for the majority leader and the
minority leader to sit down in one office or the other and come up with
some kind of an agreeable compromise.
I thought, as usual, that was a very constructive suggestion from my
friend and colleague from New Mexico, with whom I have worked on the
Budget Committee each and every year, this being the 18th, since I have
been here.
It makes an awful lot more sense than the long, drag-out
confrontation that we seem to be headed for and are involved in now
with regard to what is right and what is wrong with the request made by
the chairman of the Banking Committee for the continuation of the
hearings as long as he wants to pursue them in whatever manner the
chairman of the committee wishes to pursue them.
I notice with great interest there were several references during the
last hour and 20 minutes, when I was listening very carefully, that the
name of Robert Byrd was used. We all respect Robert Byrd as one of the
great Members of the U.S. Senate of today and certainly, in my opinion,
of all time. It has been said on the floor that Senator Byrd felt that
the Iran-Contra hearings should proceed because we have ``a
constitutional responsibility.'' I do not think there is any quarrel
with that. I suspect that Senator Byrd voted for the Whitewater
investigation, as did this Senator, because I think it is our
constitutional responsibility to investigate wrongdoing.
In that regard, I might say that one of the side elements of this
investigation and other investigations that we see more and more and
more going on forever and forever and forever in the Senate of the
United States, has caused a great deal of harm and a great deal of
expense to many people whom most would agree are totally innocent. That
has happened. The committee is chaired by my colleague from New York.
It happened in previous committees.
If you read the newspapers and talk to some of the people that have
appeared before the Banking Committee, you will find that when they
come there, they have to bring a lawyer to protect themselves. The
amount of lawyers' fees that these people have, mostly without means,
to defend themselves when they are called by a committee of the U.S.
Senate, they have spent anywhere from $50,000 in the last few months,
sometimes up to $500,000 in the last few months, out of their own
pockets to defend themselves, when in most instances most would agree
most of them, if not all --and I say most of them, and maybe all, with
the understanding that there was always a reason to investigate
Whitewater. The dialog that we have heard, the dog and pony show for
the last hour and 20 minutes, was merely to fulfill the wishes of those
who wish to continue.
Senator Byrd said it is our constitutional responsibility. And it is.
And we have investigated. Senator Domenici suggests that the two
leaders should get together and work out some kind of a compromise, if
you will. That is the only way we get things done down here, after we
raise all kinds of havoc. I endorse the suggestion made by Senator
Domenici.
My colleague from Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Banking
Committee, knows where this Senator has been coming from on this issue
for a long, long time. I think that we have granted the Banking
Committee--I voted to give the Banking Committee the time and the money
to make an investigation. I am willing to give them some additional
time, if that is what they need.
But if anyone thinks that this Senator is going to give an open-ended
license to the present chairman of the Banking Committee, or anyone
else, to go on and on and on and on, on something that, in my view,
should have been concluded weeks ago, they are badly mistaken.
We do this to ourselves here, Democrats and Republicans, over and
over again. We wonder why the polls show that the people despise--I
think the word ``despise'' is not overstated--they despise, as a group,
the Members of the House of Representatives and the Members of the U.S.
Senate. Even used car salesmen, I believe, rate ahead of us in the
polls. Why is that? Because we bring it on ourselves, Democrats and
Republicans. It is not just one side of the aisle or the other. It is
the conspiratorial nature of the business, unfortunately.
Mr. President, I had been the Governor of my State for 8-years,
longer than any other person in the history of that State, and this is
my 18th year in the U.S. Senate. I have never been sued, either before
I was in public service or since I have been in public service. I never
have been accused of any wrongdoing. I have never had to pay out a
dollar, let alone $50,000 or $500,000 or more, to defend myself. I have
had the wonderful experience of serving 18 years in the U.S. Senate.
I have been in hundreds of thousands of hours of committee hearings
on the national security interests of the United States, the Armed
Services Committee, in the Budget Committee, that is very much up front
now. I happen to be the ranking member of the Budget Committee at the
present time. I also serve, and have since I came here, also, in
addition to those two committees, as a member of the Commerce, Science,
and Transportation Committee.
I am proud to say that never, as long as I have served or called
witnesses or been a part of questioning witnesses, have I ever cost
even one of those witnesses any money out of their own pocket to come
before me as the sacred
[[Page S1441]]
one on the elevated platform directing questions down at them.
It so happens that I have not, nor have I ever, sought to serve on
the Ethics Committee of the U.S. Senate. I do not like judging other
people. I have never sought to serve on that committee or any other
investigative committee that is going after people, to get people. Some
of that is necessary. I believe that Bob Byrd is right in saying we
have a constitutional responsibility to do that. But in so doing--and
it has been going on and on every day, almost of every week of every
month, and certainly of every year since I have served in this body--
some people, a group of people, have set up themselves as judge and
jury. They use the taxpayers' money of the United States of America to
make accusations, to carry on investigations, some of them legitimate.
But we wonder why the people of the United States distrust us.
I saw a bumper sticker on a car in Nebraska the other day that said,
``I love my country, but I don't trust my Government.'' Well, is it any
wonder what we do to ourselves? We have become the conspirators,
whether we recognize or realize it or not. And the feeling of the
people of the United States with regard to their elected public
officials, most of whom I can certify are honest, God-fearing people
trying to do the right thing, whether they have Democrat or Republican
behind their names, we wonder why we are not more respected. Because of
what you see on the floor of the U.S. Senate tonight.
I am not conspiratorial by nature, and I do not like what is going
on. In addition to the committee of jurisdiction that seems to be on
the tube every time I turn on C--SPAN, and I see mean-looking lawyers
peering down, as if they were judges, at these people behind them, kind
of like the Christians in the lion's den in Rome--I see that, and I do
not like that either because I think you can make inquiry of people as
a U.S. Senator in a fashion that does not say, ``It is us against
them.'' That is what is going on here.
The costs of this, as I understand it, are over $1 million for the
committee and up to $15 million or more for the special prosecutor.
The special prosecutor has a job to do, and I voted the money to have
the special prosecutor check into Whitewater. I guess what I am saying,
Mr. President, is that somewhere sometime enough is enough.
Some--not this Senator--some have said that the chairman of the
Banking Committee is doing this primarily because he is the chairman of
the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, which is designed to
collect money and make a lot of hoopla to try and elect Republicans.
Well, that is the job of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee,
and we have a Member on this side who does the same thing.
But some have said--not this Senator--some have said one of the main
reasons that the chairman of the Banking Committee, who is
simultaneously chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign
Committee, is doing this and wants more taxpayer money to continue the
investigation forever and forever and forever, as near as I can tell,
is he wants to continue it at least until after the November elections,
because some have said--not this Senator--that the chairman of the
Banking Committee wants to do this for political reasons. He thinks it
will help elect Republicans.
Now remember, I did not say that, but I guess other people have.
Whether that is true or not, I voted for the money for the special
prosecutor to investigate Whitewater. I voted in support of and
provided a vote to provide the money to the Banking Committee to do
their investigation. I had assumed that it would not take longer than
it took to investigate other matters, such as Iran-Contra, but it has
for whatever reason. Now the chairman of the Banking Committee wishes
to go on and on and on.
I simply say that I do not believe this committee going on and on and
on, spending more of the taxpayers' money is going to amount to any
more than it has already. The special prosecutor is continuing, the
special prosecutor is the place to bring charges if anyone before the
Banking Committee has committed perjury, as was indicated by the dog-
and-pony show tonight. If they committed perjury, they should be
prosecuted, and if they are found guilty, they should stand whatever
the sentence in court should be.
I simply say that I think it is far past time for this committee to
have made its report, but in the good nature that I think has always
embodied me, I suggested to the ranking Democrat, the Senator from
Maryland, who is on the floor, what, 2 months ago, 3 months ago--I do
not know what it was--when the chairman of the Banking Committee was
beginning to talk about the necessity to extend this date beyond the
expiration date of yesterday and wanted $200,000 or $300,000 more of
taxpayers' money to get the job done, I said, ``I'm not for that at
all. I think they should be called upon to wind up their inquiry and
make their report to the U.S. Senate.''
But I said in the spirit of compromise, since the chairman of the
Banking Committee says he wants more time and he needs more time, I
would, against my better judgment say, ``All right, let's give them
another 30 days, until the 28th of March, and $90,000,'' or whatever it
takes to wind this up and then set a date for the report no later than
30 days after that, so that we can get on with this matter. I remember
very well the ranking Democrat at that time thanking me for that
suggestion.
We have now come to the place, while I can assure the Senate that the
vast majority of the Democrats in this body--and there are 47 of us--
the vast majority of them are against any extension period beyond the
expiration date of the committee of yesterday.
But it has been talked over and it was agreed, in an effort to come
to some kind of a compromise, that we do not want to filibuster, we do
not think a filibuster is necessary.
Following up on what Senator Domenici suggested on the floor of the
Senate, why do we not have the majority leader, Senator Dole, and the
minority leader, Senator Daschle, get together tomorrow and make a
decision, a reasonable decision, along the lines that Senator Dole
suggested back under the Iran-Contra affair?
At that time, the Democrats were the conspirators. They were the ones
who wanted to continue this discussion. Senator Dole suggested that we
should not go on with Iran-Contra forever. It was causing problems for
the President of the United States who, at that time, was a Republican.
Believe it or not, Mr. President, the Democratic majority at that time
said, ``Senator Dole, you're right. You're making sense. You're trying
to be reasonable, Senator Dole.''
What we are asking for at the present time, and taking up on the
public expression and request by my friend and colleague from New
Mexico, it is time for the two leaders to get together. It is time to
end the dog-and-pony show. It is time to come to a definite timeframe--
30 days, x amount of money, whatever is necessary--to wind up this
investigation, and then anything further that is done beyond that, as
it should be, would be accomplished by the special prosecutor.
If we end the investigation by the Banking Committee tonight, the
special prosecutor is still there with full subpoena powers and the
authority of a prosecutor to bring charges for anything that he thinks
needs to be raised in the courts.
I simply say, Mr. President, that I hope we will take the wise
counsel offered by the Senator from New Mexico, my friend, Senator
Domenici, and resolve this matter tomorrow and get on with the business
of the U.S. Senate.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
____________________