[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.

                          ____________________