[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1567-S1595]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  WHITEWATER DEVELOPMENT CORP. AND RELATED MATTERS--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the motion.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have heard just about all the whining 
about Whitewater that I can stand. To be honest with you, if this was a 
Republican President, what has already been uncovered would be front-
page headlines all over the country everyday.
  The fact is, it is a mess, and it does not take any brains for people 
to realize that if you set a short time limit, people are literally not 
going to comply with that time limit.
  We have had more than ample proof that that has been the case here--
more than ample proof. The fact of the matter is, we have had documents 
dribbling in at the last minute 2\1/2\ years since there has been a 
subpoena for them. There is no excuse for it. To hear our friends on 
the other side on this issue, it is outrageous what they are saying, 
and to act like this is not the Senate's business is also outrageous. 
There may not be anything more important for the Senate to do than to 
do its job in this area.
  Now, I have to say, I hope personally that the President and the 
First Lady do not have any difficulties in the end, but there are a lot 
of unanswered questions. There are a lot of things that any logically 
minded person or fairminded person would have to conclude create some 
difficulties for anybody, let alone the President and the First Lady.
  It is one thing to stand up and defend your party and your party's 
President--I have done it myself, and I do not have any problem with 
that at all; in fact, I commend my friends on the other side for doing 
it--but it is another thing to act like this is not important business 
or that we should not be doing this; that there are other things more 
important. Of course, there are other things that are also important, 
but not more important, and we should be doing all of them. And I agree 
with some of the criticism that has been given with regard to some of 
the things that need to be done.
  We have done a lot, but a lot has been vetoed. There is a lot tied up 
in conferences today. There is a lot that is not being done because of 
party warfare here. I have never seen more filibusters used in my whole 
20 years in the Senate than I have seen in the last couple of years. 
Almost everything, even inconsequential bills. Why? Because they want 
to stop any momentum of the Contract With America. That is legitimate. 
I am not going to cry about that, but I do not believe you use 
filibusters on just about everything. To me that is wrong.
  So I rise today to express my support for the extension of the 
Special Committee on Whitewater and Related Matters. As chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, I see it as my duty to defend the separation of 
powers and the constitutional prerogatives of the executive branch. 
These are important things, and I have to say, in some ways, I resent 
some of the comments that indicate these are not important things. I 
guess they are not important because it is a Democratic President who 
is being investigated at this time. Boy, they were sure important when 
Republican Presidents were in office. You could not stop anything from 
going on, and you had both Houses of Congress controlled by Democrats 
in most of those cases.
  We are talking about the separation of powers and the constitutional 
prerogatives of the executive branch. After giving this issue careful 
thought, however, I have decided that the special committee's 
investigation into Whitewater must continue. This issue transcends the 
claims of partisanship and goes to the very constitutional authority of 
Congress to investigate wrongdoing at the highest levels of Government.
  Congress has the constitutional obligation to see that public 
officials have not misused their office, and we have a duty to bring 
these matters to the public eye so that the American people can be 
confident that their Government is operated in a fair, just, and honest 
way.

  We must provide the special committee with more time in order to 
demonstrate that delaying tactics of a White House, whether Democrat or 
Republican, will not be permitted to frustrate a legitimate 
congressional investigation.

[[Page S1568]]

  For example, I was dismayed that we received more notes from the 
White House relevant to this investigation just last week. Now, I am 
happy that we received these notes--more notes--that are responsive to 
the special committee's requests. I am just concerned about the delay 
in the response.
  Last Thursday, the special committee's resolution expired. In light 
of the fact that information keeps trickling out of the White House, I 
can see no other way than to extend the committee's investigation until 
the most pressing questions are answered. We cannot be expected to wrap 
up our investigation when we are still receiving important information 
from the White House and awaiting the availability of key Arkansas 
witnesses currently involved in related court proceedings in that 
State.
  The special committee must be given time to conduct a fair, careful 
and thorough investigation so that the Congress can be confident that 
all of the issues surrounding the Whitewater scandal have been fully 
aired and examined. Some have requested that a time limit be put on the 
extension of the Whitewater committee. That might not be a bad idea 
under certain circumstances. Unfortunately, however, we cannot agree to 
any time limits until the criminal trials have been completed.
  Some have thought that the reason the Democrats have suggested 5 
weeks is because that is how long the criminal trials will take. At 
that point, it will be over and you cannot get some of the witnesses 
who really have to come before the committee.
  Many of the witnesses who will testify in the criminal trials may 
also need to come before the Whitewater committee. We cannot agree to 
any time limit that would preclude the Whitewater committee from 
completing its work or we will get into the same debate 5 weeks from 
now. If we set that time limit, I guarantee you we will be in this same 
debate 5 weeks from now because there will be further delays, further 
obfuscation, further finding of documents at the last minute. At least 
that has been the situation up to now.
  As long as doubt concerning Whitewater continues, the President and 
the First Lady will not enjoy the full trust of the American people. 
This scandal is not just bad politics, it is bad for the future of our 
Nation.
  I believe we do need more time to further examine whether White House 
officials attempted to interfere improperly with the Justice 
Department's investigation. During January 1994, Mr. Mark Gearan, then 
director of communications at the White House, took detailed notes of a 
series of meetings on Whitewater with senior White House personnel. I 
am concerned that, despite White House denials, attempts were made both 
to influence the appointment of a special prosecutor or independent 
counsel and to affect the testimony of some of the key witnesses in 
that case.
  I am particularly concerned that attempts were made to influence the 
appointment of an independent counsel. We have only begun efforts, the 
needed efforts to investigate these problems.
  Mr. Gearan's notes indicate several White House officials, including 
Mr. Ickes, argued that an independent counsel should not be sought. 
Now, I can see that. But from what I am able to glean from these notes, 
I presume the reason White House officials opposed an independent 
counsel's appointment was that an independent counsel could not be 
``controlled.'' That is what the notes say.
  For example, in the January 5 meeting, Mr. Gearan's notes record 
Bernie Nussbaum as saying that the independent counsel is ``subject to 
no control.''
  During the January 7 meeting, Mr. Gearan's notes say, ``We cannot 
affect the scope of the prosecutor.''
  I think a fair reading of these statements is that the high-level 
White House officials were concerned about the appointment of an 
independent counsel, because they could not exercise control over his 
or her investigation. According to Mr. Gearan's notes, Mr. Ickes stated 
that neither the President nor the staff could speak to the First Lady 
about appointing a special counsel.
  This suggests to me that the First Lady was making the final decision 
about whether a special counsel should be appointed. It certainly is 
not proper for the possible subject of an investigation to have input 
as to whether or not a special counsel should be appointed. We need 
more time to study this very worrisome possibility.
  Mr. Gearan's notes of January 8 indicate that Mr. Ickes said that Mr. 
Kendall, the Clintons' personal lawyer, attempted to talk to Alan 
Carver who was supervising Donald McKay's investigation into Whitewater 
at the time. In fact, according to Mr. Gearan's notes, Mr. Ickes called 
Mr. Carver a ``bad'' guy, a guy who would not talk to Mr. Kendall 
without FBI agents present.
  Then, according to Gearan's notes:

       Mr. Ickes went so far as to say, ``That guy is f. . . us 
     blue.''

  Was the Department of Justice getting too close to the truth? How 
could Mr. Carver and Mr. Mackay be a problem if they were only doing 
their jobs to carefully investigate Whitewater? During the same time as 
the White House meetings, Attorney General Janet Reno was considering 
whether to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Whitewater. At 
that time, the independent counsel statute had lapsed and the Attorney 
General chose Robert Fiske on January 20 to be her special prosecutor.
  Unlike the independent counsel, the special prosecutor was under the 
control of the Justice Department and, ultimately, the President. Less 
than 2 weeks after these White House meetings, during which time the 
benefit of an apathetic special counsel was discussed at length, Janet 
Reno chose Robert Fiske as the special prosecutor, a man who many 
consider had failed to investigate fully the events surrounding 
Whitewater. I read some of his depositions. They were not detailed. 
They were not carefully done. I know Mr. Fiske. I have a high regard 
for him as an attorney, but in this particular matter I do not think he 
was doing the job that needed to be done.
  We have learned that Webster Hubbell kept Whitewater documents of the 
Rose Law Firm in his basement after the election. Some of these may 
have been in Vince Foster's office when he died. We need to investigate 
whether at the time of these White House meetings Mr. Hubbell continued 
to have the documents in his basement while serving as an Associate 
Attorney General of the United States and was perhaps privy to 
discussions in the Justice Department concerning whether to appoint an 
independent counsel.
  Another area that disturbs me is the effort to contact Ms. Beverly 
Bassett Schaffer. According to evidence collected to date, Mr. Ickes 
was deeply concerned about Ms. Schaffer's testimony. She had been the 
acting securities commissioner. He wanted a checkered story to make 
sure it would support President and Mrs. Clinton's version of the 
events surrounding Whitewater. Mr. Ickes even said he could not send 
any prominent members of the White House to speak with her because the 
press, or others, might get wind of what was going on. Mr. Ickes said 
that if these steps were not taken, ``We are done.''
  I hate to read anything sinister into that statement, but an argument 
could be made that Mr. Ickes was worried that if he could not 
successfully manipulate Ms. Schaffer's testimony, serious consequences 
could result. I am gravely concerned about any discussion by White 
House officials to influence the workings of the Justice Department, 
particularly when it conducts ongoing criminal investigations into the 
White House.
  Earlier, when I questioned Ms. Sherburne and Mr. Gearan about the 
notes, I became concerned that officials at the White House were trying 
to influence the story of an important witness--Ms. Schaffer--in this 
investigation. Ms. Sherburne agreed the notes could be read that way. 
That was in response to my questions--that, yes, they could be read 
that way.
  The possibility that White House officials might attempt to influence 
or tamper with the ongoing actions of the President and his aides 
raises questions about the integrity and fairness of the administration 
of justice in our Nation. I cannot believe that anybody in good 
conscience could oppose a continuation of this committee's 
investigation until we start getting answers to the many troubling 
questions that have been raised.

[[Page S1569]]

  Putting aside these problems, there are many other unanswered 
questions that have been raised by the committee's investigation that 
would require further investigation. Now, this is my Whitewater top 10 
questions list. It is, by no means, exhaustive. It is just 10 I think 
ought to be answered.
  First: How did the First Lady's billing records from the Rose Law 
Firm mysteriously appear in the personal quarters of the White House 
long after they had been subpoenaed?

  Second: Who brought Madison Guaranty into the Rose Law Firm as a 
client, and who had primary responsibility for that account?
  Third: Did the First Lady attempt to benefit from her relationship 
with her husband, then-Governor Clinton, in representing Madison 
Guaranty before Arkansas regulators, including Beverly Bassett 
Schaffer, who was the Arkansas State Securities Commissioner?
  Fourth: Did the First Lady attempt to persuade Beverly Bassett 
Schaffer to approve a highly unusual deal that would have allowed 
Madison to stay afloat longer than it did?
  Fifth: What was the First Lady's role in the Castle Grande deal? Did 
she assist Madison in what the RTC concluded was a sham transaction to 
conceal Madison's true ownership interest in the problem?
  Sixth: Have the President and the First Lady's lawyers attempted to 
impede the investigations into Whitewater by the special prosecutor and 
the Senate special committee?
  Seventh: Did the First Lady, her aides, or Bernard Nussbaum prevent 
Justice Department investigators from searching Vincent Foster's office 
after his death?
  Eighth: Was there a effort to interfere with the investigation of 
Whitewater, as suggested by Mr. Gearan's notes?
  Ninth: Who ordered the firing of Billy Dale in the White House travel 
office? What was their motive? Was there some connection with 
Whitewater? Was there some connection with something that was 
inappropriate or wrong? Certainly, there appears to be, and that needs 
to be cleared up. I hope there was nothing wrong, but there appears to 
be so.
  Tenth: Were Rose Law Firm records purposely removed from the firm 
and/or destroyed?
  Before these hearings began, the American public had been told there 
had been full disclosure. We now know that this is not true.
  Before these hearings began, the American people were told Hillary 
Clinton did not work on Whitewater or Castle Grande. We now know that 
is not true. On Whitewater, she billed 53 hours, had 68 telephone 
conversations, and 33 conferences. You could go on and on. On Castle 
Grande, she billed more than any other partner in the law firm, as I 
understand it. I think it was 14\1/2\ hours. She had a number of 
conversations with Seth Ward, who was used as a straw man to circumvent 
the law in what regulators have called a sham transaction.
  Before these hearings began, the American public had been told that 
there had been full disclosure. It is clear there had not been. We know 
that is not true. It is only because of these hearings that we know 
that.
  These hearings have been very important, regardless of the outcome. 
It is our constitutional responsibility to follow through and conclude 
them in a satisfactory, fair, and decent manner.
  Before these hearings began, as I said, the American people were told 
Hillary Clinton did not work on the Whitewater and Castle Grande cases. 
We now know that is not true. We know that. The hearings proved it.
  Before these hearings began, we were told there was no interference 
with the Justice Department's investigation into Vince Foster's death. 
We now know, as a result of these hearings, that is not true.
  You could go on and on. Given this history of deception, delay, and 
obfuscation, should the Senate take the administration's word on these 
matters? To permit us to close the book on this scandal, the Senate 
must approve the extension of the Whitewater committee operations. The 
American people demand no less from their elected officials. The 
counsel is pursuing the criminal aspects of this case, and it is 
important that the Congress fulfill its constitutional duty to conduct 
oversight at the executive branch and inform the American people of its 
findings. We have had suggestions that we ought to take 5 weeks and 
work 8 to 10 hours a day and we will solve this problem.
  I have to tell you that since this committee has been established, 
committee counsel has been working a lot more than 10 hours a day every 
day. You cannot have hearings every day because it takes time to do the 
depositions and prepare, get documents together and go through them, 
and it takes time to put them together in a cohesive way. To prepare 
the questions, it takes time for each Senator. These hearings have to 
be planned and done in a reasonable, orderly, credible way.
  I also can guarantee you that the minority's attorneys have been 
working full time on these matters because they are serious, because 
there are thousands of documents, because there are questions that are 
unanswered, because we have to get to the bottom of this.
  Again, I will repeat that I like President and Mrs. Clinton. I have 
worked rather closely with the President for these last 2 years. I do 
not think anybody in this body can deny that. I have tried to help him 
with judges and other appointments, and on legislation, and I think he 
would be the first to acknowledge that. I have been very friendly to 
the First Lady. I hope there is nothing that hurts either of them here. 
But it would hurt the Congress, the Senate, if we, once we have this 
charge, do not follow through and bring it to a conclusion in a fair, 
just, and orderly way. We are clearly not at a conclusion now, not with 
getting documents as late as last week, even after the commission of 
this special committee has expired.
  So this is important stuff, and I know that my colleagues are tired 
of it on the other side. I do not blame them. I got tired of Iran-
Contra and a number of issues that were, in many respects, worked to 
death.
  This is something that until it is resolved and resolved in a fair, 
just, and reasonable way, I think you cannot count on the President and 
First Lady having the full trust and confidence of the American people. 
Hopefully, when this is all over, they can. If they cannot, it is 
another matter. But at least we ought to get this thing put to bed and 
put to bed right.
  I agree with the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee, you 
cannot put a 5-week delay on it. You do have to put up enough money to 
resolve these matters, to be able to investigate them fully. There are 
just countless documents, countless witnesses in this matter, and we 
have not even gotten into the hard-core issues of this matter. That 
cannot be done until the trial is over, which is estimated to take 5 or 
6 weeks.
  I know that my colleagues are not just simply choosing that timeframe 
so that they can avoid another set of hearings or mess up this 
investigation. On the other hand, I think they have to acknowledge that 
5 weeks is not enough time and that, if you do put a time limit on it, 
there is a natural propensity on the part of those who have something 
to hide to make sure it is hidden until after it is too late to bring 
it up.
  Frankly, I do not think we should do that. We owe it to the Senate, 
we owe it to the Constitution, we owe it to our own conscience to do it 
in the right way. I want the hearings to be fair. I think thus far they 
have been. I want to commend the distinguished chairman of the 
committee, Senator D'Amato. Contrary to what many on the opposite side 
thought before these hearings began, I think he has conducted them in a 
fair and reasonable manner.
  I also want to compliment the minority leader on the committee, 
Senator Sarbanes. He is one of the more thoughtful, intelligent people 
in this body. We came to the Senate together. I have tremendous respect 
for him. I think he has conducted himself in the most exemplary of 
ways, and I have respect and admiration for the way he has done so. I 
think both of them have done a very good job. I think other members of 
the committee have done a good job as well.
  It is apparent that it takes time. It is apparent it is a painful 
experience for all to go through, including those on the committee. It 
means reading thousands of documents and trying to stay

[[Page S1570]]

up with a very convoluted set of circumstances here that are very 
difficult for anyone. We simply have to go forward. I do not think it 
is right to delay this any longer. I think literally we should go 
forward. There should not be a filibuster on this matter.
  In fact, of all things, I think there should be no filibuster on this 
motion to extend the time of the committee. Truthfully, I think the 
Rules Committee needs to get the resolution out and we need to vote on 
it, up or down, and let the chips fall where they may and go about 
doing our business in the best, most ethical, reasonable, and just way 
we possibly can.
  In the meantime, I will be pushing to extend this committee because I 
think it is the right thing to do. I have raised a lot of questions 
that literally have not been answered as of this time. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from 
Minnesota on the floor. I know he wishes to speak.
  I want to take a couple of moments because there is one thing my 
distinguished colleague from Utah made reference to. He talked about 
the previous hearings and other Congresses when the Congress was 
Democratically controlled, and I think that is an important point. I 
just want to come back to revisit the Iran-Contra hearings on which the 
distinguished Senator from Utah served. As he will recall, at the 
outset of that, there were Democrats who wanted to extend those 
hearings into 1988, into the election year. Now, Senator Inouye and 
Representative Hamilton rejected that proposition and agreed, in 
response to a very strong representation by Senator Dole for a specific 
date to end it, and then conducted hearings in a very intense manner in 
order to accomplish that.
  Again, I want to make the contrast between the hearings schedule in 
Iran-Contra in order to meet its cutoff date, which involved 21 
hearings between July 7 and August 6. In other words, we had hearings 
every weekday throughout that period from July 7 to August 6 except for 
2 days--21 out of 23 days we held hearings. Contrast that pace, that 
effort to comply with a requirement that had been passed by the Senate, 
with what took place over the last 2 months, when this committee in 
January held only 7 days of hearings--in other words, all of the other 
days were open to hold hearings, and no hearings were held. The same 
thing happened in February, where we held only 8 days of hearings. In 
fact, this committee, over a 2-month period, without the Senate being 
in session--we had the opportunity to really meet continually--held 
only 15 days of hearings over a 2-month period; whereas the Iran-Contra 
Committee, to which my colleague made reference, held 21 days of 
hearings in a 23-day period.
  I think this simply demonstrates the effort then in that Congress to 
keep this matter out of the political election year. It stands in 
marked contrast to what has transpired over the last 2 months.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I want to take a few minutes of 
this debate, but offer my thoughts within a somewhat different 
framework.
  In a recent USA-CNN Gallup Poll of big issues facing Congress--and I 
am sure others have referred to this--virtually no one suggested 
Congress should be devoting time and resources to Whitewater--67 
percent of the people said Congress should work on approving public 
education; 66 percent cited crime as a major concern; 64 percent said 
jobs and the economy; and 63 percent worried about health care.
  Madam President, this Senate, the majority-led Senate, has not held 
even one hearing on better jobs and wages. We have not had one hearing 
on better jobs and wages. Only 3 hearings have been held on improving 
public education, and 12 on crime control, drugs, and terrorism. Madam 
President, the majority party did not hold even one Senate hearing on 
what was an unprecedented plan to slash Medicare.
  The reason I mention this, Madam President, is that I think there is 
a disconnect between all of the time and all of the resources that have 
been devoted to this hearing versus what it is people are telling us in 
cafes and town meetings in our own States that they are really 
concerned about. I do not hear people talking to me about the 
Whitewater hearings, except they wonder why they go on and on and on 
and on, and they want to know how much more will be spent on them.
  I do hear people talking to me, not in the language of left or right, 
not in the language of Democrats or Republicans. People say to me, 
``Senator, am I going to have a pension when I retire? I am really 
worried. I am 67 years old, and I am really worried.'' ``Will there be 
Medicare?'' Or, ``Senator, I have Medicare but I have to pay for 
prescription drug costs. I have Parkinson's disease. My father had 
Parkinson's disease. I cannot afford the price of these drugs.'' Or, 
``Senator, you know the story about AT&T? That is my story. I worked 
for a company for 30 years. I worked 5 days a week and more. I was 
skilled. I was middle management and a responsible wage earner. I gave 
that company everything I had. I did a good job. I thought if you did 
that, at age 50 or 55 you would not find yourself fired with nowhere to 
go, just spit out of the economy.''
  Or people in cafes say, ``Senator, this is for all of us, regardless 
of party. Senator, we have three children. They are in their twenties 
and the problem is that they are not able to obtain jobs that pay 
decent wages with decent fringe benefits. We do not know what will 
happen with our kids.'' Or ``Senator, I have a small business going and 
I do not know if I can continue to make a go of it.'' These are the 
issues that people are talking about--basic economic opportunity 
issues, basic bread and butter issues, basic issues about how to 
sustain their families and communities.
  Madam President, I raise this because I wanted today to focus on 
another one of these basic economic ``bread and butter'' issues, which 
is minimum wage. As the author of the only minimum wage legislation in 
the last Congress, I congratulate the minority leader, Senator Daschle, 
for his focus today on increasing the Federal minimum wage. Despite the 
increases that went into effect in 1990 and 1991, the current minimum 
wage is not a living wage. It is a poverty wage--$4.25 an hour. Should 
we not start talking about that on the floor of the U.S. Senate? A 
person working 52 weeks a year, 40 hours a week, works for a poverty 
wage. A person making a minimum wage earns just about $170 a week, and 
that is before taxes--income tax, Social Security tax, you name it.

  Madam President, the principle that a minimum wage ought to be a 
living wage served this Nation well for 40 years. From the enactment of 
the first Federal minimum wage law in 1938, through the end of the 
1970's, Congress addressed this issue six times.
  Six times bipartisan majorities, with the support of both Republican 
and Democratic Presidents, reaffirmed our Nation's commitment to a fair 
minimum wage for working people in this country. But during the 1980's 
the real value of the minimum wage plummeted and, adjusted for 
inflation, the value of the minimum wage has fallen by nearly 50 cents 
since 1991 and it is now 27 percent lower than in 1979, using 1995 
dollars. To put it in another context, we need to realize that the 
minimum wage would have had to have been raised to $5.75 an hour last 
year to have the same purchasing power it averaged in the 1970's.
  When are we going to start talking about good education and good 
jobs? I said on the floor of the Senate before, real welfare reform 
would mean an increased minimum wage, good education, and a good job. 
If you want to reduce poverty: Good education, and a good job. If you 
want to reduce violence you have to focus, in addition to strong law 
enforcement, on a good education, and a good job. If you want to have a 
stable middle class, it is a good education and a good job. Do you want 
our Nation to do well economically? A good education, a good job. When 
are we going to focus on these issues, I ask my colleagues?
  We go on and on and on and on with these hearings, and now they want 
to go on and on again. And we do not focus on the very issues about 
which people are coming up to us, back in our States, and saying to us, 
in as urgent and as eloquent a way as possible, ``Senators, please 
speak to the concerns and circumstances of our lives. We are worried 
about pensions. We are

[[Page S1571]]

worried about health care. We are worried about jobs. We are worried 
about being able to educate our children. We are worried about being 
able to reduce violence in our communities.'' When are we going to 
focus on that?
  When are we going to talk about raising the minimum wage? Madam 
President, 75, 80 percent of the people in the country say we must do 
this. And contrary, Madam President, to popular misconception, the 
minimum wage is not just paid to teenagers who ``flip burgers'' in 
their spare time. Less than one in three minimum wage earners are 
teenagers. In fact, less than 50 percent of those who receive minimum 
wage are adults 25 years of age and over. And more important, 60 
percent of the minimum wage earners in this country are women.
  Madam President, we have talked about welfare reform. And, you know, 
I think it is true the best welfare reform is a job. But I think we 
ought to add to that and say the best welfare reform is a job that pays 
a living wage. Increasing the minimum wage will help in the welfare 
reform effort, because it is one means of making work pay.
  I guess that the reason that I use this opportunity to talk about a 
minimum wage is that I want to point out the disconnect between all 
these hearings, all this money we have spent on Whitewater, and a 
Republican-led Senate that is not focusing on raising the minimum wage, 
not focusing on living wages, not focused on what we are going to do to 
make sure people keep their pensions, not focused on opportunity, not 
focused on how people are going to afford education for their children 
or for themselves.
  People work hard in this country and they deserve to earn a living 
wage for their work. It is that simple. I would appreciate it if we 
would get some focus on this in this U.S. Senate. Pretty soon I am 
going to come to the floor with other Senators with an amendment so we 
can have a vote, so people can hold us accountable. Because people want 
to know what in the world we are doing as legislators to make a 
positive difference in their lives.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I was on Iran-Contra Committee. I have to 
admit it was a huge committee with a huge budget and all kinds of 
lawyers, and it had to be--I do not know how many people were on that 
committee, but it was both the House and the Senate. And every effort 
was put forth. And I have to say the White House cooperated fully. 
Outside of the documents that were shredded by Oliver North and his 
secretary, which were fully explained, there was complete cooperation. 
There was not obfuscation. There was not withholding of documents. 
There was not withholding of witnesses. There were not notes indicating 
that there were these type of things going on in the White House.

  We have had to fight for everything we got here. I do not think 
anybody who watches those hearings seriously would conclude other than 
that there has been a lot of delay and a lot of obfuscation, a lot of 
failure to comply, a lot of failure to work with the committee.
  There has been an effort to work with the committee, too. I do not 
want to fail to give people respect who have legitimately come forth. 
But this committee was created just 9 months ago on May 17, 1995. The 
Iran-Contra investigation lasted for more than a year.
  The Joint Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and 
the Nicaraguan Opposition was established on January 6, 1987. The 
committee conducted hearings until August 1987. The committee was 
extended twice in 1987, from August to October and then from October to 
November. And the committee filed its report on November 17, 1987. On 
December 10, 1987, the House voted to extend its operation to March 1, 
1988.
  There is an important thing we ought to note here. The special 
committee is not really seeking a ``extension.'' That is, Resolution 
120 will not expire and the committee will not cease to exist on March 
1, 1987, if the new resolution is not adopted. All that the committee 
is asking for is additional funding so that the investigators and the 
attorneys can be paid.
  By historical standards the Whitewater committee has not been an 
especially long-lived investigatory committee. The Truman Committee, 
also known as the Special Committee To Investigate the National Defense 
Program, was in existence for 8 years, from 1941 to 1948. During that 
time the committee held 432 hearings and examined 1,798 witnesses; I 
guess millions of documents.
  The Joint Select Committee on the Conduct of the War, the Civil War 
that is, lasted for 3\1/2\ years, from 1861 to 1864, and the committee 
convened 272 times.
  The Watergate Committee, also known as the Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign Activity, was formed on February 7, 1973, and 
issued its final report on June 27, 1974.
  The Senate spent 11 months investigating the so-called October 
Surprise. A subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations 
appointed a special counsel on October 16, 1991. The special counsel's 
report was issued on November 19, 1992.
  The allegations at issue in the October Surprise investigation were 
completely spurious--completely. Everybody acknowledges that today. Yet 
it took 11 months. I hope they are here, too, but it does not look that 
way. At least with what we have done so far, there are too many 
unanswered questions that have to be answered.
  With respect to the central allegation on the October Surprise 
matter, that the Reagan campaign made a deal with the Khomeini regime 
to delay the release of the hostages until after the 1980 Presidential 
election, the special counsel concluded that:

       There is not sufficient credible evidence to support this 
     allegation. The primary sources for this allegation have 
     proven wholly unreliable. Their claims regarding alleged 
     secret meetings are riddled with inconsistencies and have 
     been contradicted by irrefutable documentary evidence as well 
     as the testimony of vastly more credible witnesses.

  Now, let me just say the $30 million figure is not the amount of 
money this committee has spent. The special committee thus far has 
spent $950,000. The special committee has been very productive. This 
committee has deposed 221 witnesses, had 41 hearing days and heard the 
testimony of 121 witnesses, with a staff of around 20. That is pretty 
productive. That does not indicate any wasting of time.

  I commend both the chairman and the ranking member for having worked 
so hard along with other members of the committee. But what this 
committee has done compares favorably with the Iran-Contra Committee 
which conducted 250 depositions and 250 interviews, had 40 days of 
hearings, and heard the testimony of 28 witnesses. And they had a staff 
of 100.
  What would be a waste of money would be to end the investigation now 
just when the investigation is starting to heat up and before the 
committee has received the White House e-mail and has fully 
investigated the withholding of the billing records.
  Senator Byrd said the following during the Iran-Contra debate in 
response to a suggestion that the investigation would not be worth its 
costs. Senator Byrd said:

       May I say, if we are going to talk in terms of cost, this 
     is the 200th anniversary of the Constitution of the United 
     States, and there is no price tag on a constitutional system 
     which has been around for 200 years and which has worked very 
     well, and which will continue to work very well. Under our 
     constitutional system, there is a doctrine that we speak of 
     as checks and balances, and that is precisely what is being 
     done here. The Congress has a constitutional responsibility 
     of oversight, a constitutional responsibility of informing 
     the people, a constitutional responsibility of legislating. 
     Now before it can legislate it has to have hearings in order 
     to conduct its oversight responsibilities. I am saying this 
     for the Record. I am not telling the Senator anything he does 
     not know. But its oversight responsibilities and its 
     informing responsibilities which Woodrow Wilson said were as 
     important if not more important than legislative 
     responsibilities which are done mostly by committees. A 
     problem has developed which we will not go into but which 
     everybody has been reading about for quite some time, and it 
     is incumbent upon all of us to try to see what the facts are. 
     There is no price tag on that constitutional system. If there 
     is one thing we can do in this 200th year of the writing of 
     the Constitution it would be to reassure the faith of the 
     American people in that constitutional and political system, 
     and one way of doing it 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 at the plow and develop the facts.

  Senator Byrd said that on January 6, 1987. I agree with Senator Byrd.

[[Page S1572]]

  We are not at the end of these hearings. We are not at the end of 
this investigation. We are still receiving documents at the last 
minute. We have not had the cooperation that I think they had in Iran-
Contra and in other hearings. And, frankly, there is no reason not to. 
We just plain ought to finish these and carry out our constitutional 
responsibility to the best of our ability to do so.
  I hope that we can continue to do this. I think it is unseemly to 
deny the committee investigators and attorneys, the necessary requisite 
funds to be able to continue to do so, and to insist that 5 weeks is 
going to be adequate to do this job. I do not think that it will be; 
not the way we have been treated, sometimes getting documents that are 
2 years old and longer.
  I might say that the committee has been successful, too. Again, I 
will make this point. If this was a Republican President all hell would 
be breaking loose right now with what this committee has already 
uncovered. There is not misgiving about that. Everybody in America 
knows that. There is a double standard around here. There are some 
dramatic things that have been brought out. I think the committee has 
been successful. But it happens to be a Republican Senate investigation 
under a Democratic President and First Lady.
  Again, I will just say that I hope there is nothing wrong. I hope 
there is no problem with either of them. I am hoping that is the case. 
But there are a lot of things that look terrible here.

  I think it is simply not true to say that nothing has been found in 
the Whitewater investigation in general, or this committee in 
particular. One measure of what has been found is the number of 
Whitewater related indictments and convictions that have been obtained.
  Here are some of the numbers. Nine people have been convicted and 
seven are currently under indictment. And the indictments are still 
coming. The two owners of the Perry County Bank were indicted just last 
week. Further, three senior officials--Bernie Nussbaum, Roger Altman, 
and Jean Hanson were forced to resign over their handling of Whitewater 
matters. Rightly or wrongly they had to resign.
  Some of what the committee has learned include the following: A 
Secret Service agent saw Maggie Williams, the First Lady's chief of 
staff, abscond with numerous files from Vincent Foster's office the 
night of his death. She denies that. But what reason would the Secret 
Service agent have to lie?
  You might ask that question the other way. Would Maggie Williams have 
any reason not to tell the truth? I think subsequent facts kind of 
indicate otherwise.
  For instance, there was a flurry of early morning phone calls between 
the First Lady, Maggie Williams, her chief of staff, and Susan 
Thomases, her good, smart, sharp attorney friend on July 27, 1993. That 
is the First Lady's good, sharp attorney friend.
  That same day, on July 27, 1993, Bernie Nussbaum reneged on a deal he 
had agreed to the day before to let career DOJ, Department of Justice 
attorneys review the documents in Vince Foster's office. Why did he do 
that after that short flurry of phone calls that all of a sudden 
neither Susan Thomases nor Maggie Williams can really explain because 
their memories had suddenly become short?
  Notes taken during the November 35, 1993 meeting between White House 
officials and the Clinton's personal lawyers contain a reference to 
``vacuum Rose Law files.'' While at the Rose Law Firm, Mrs. Clinton had 
a dozen or more conferences with Seth Ward in connection with the 
Castle Grande matter. That land deal which banking regulators have 
termed a sham cost the taxpayers $4 million.
  I can tell you of a case in Utah where the president of the bank 
saved the bank. Throughout, the 100 percent stockholding owner of the 
bank bounced his checks and saved the bank, and yet he and the board of 
directors had to go through a tremendous and ill-advised litigation 
that cost them well over $1 million in legal fees before the Government 
finally admitted that the bank had broken even, and that they really 
had saved the bank and not caused the bank the problem. This was 
necessary in order to just get it off their backs.
  You have a case of $4 million actually lost through what was 
considered a sham transaction, a fraud. And the taxpayers are stuck 
with it.
  Mrs. Clinton also prepared an option agreement that was intended to 
be the way that Seth Ward would be compensated for acting as a straw 
man in this sham transaction called the Castle Grande transaction. 
Maybe none of this amounts to a smoking gun. But it is instructive to 
remember what Senator Sarbanes said in connection with the Iran-Contra 
investigation upon which he also sat. He said that requiring a smoking 
gun ``sets a standard of certainty that is very rare that we are going 
to reach.''
  To make a long story short, there is a lot of smoke here. There are a 
lot of unanswered questions. There has been a lot of obfuscation. There 
has been a lot of selective memory loss. There has been a lot of delays 
in giving documents. There has been a lot of ignoring subpoenas. And 
there have been a lot of explanations that just do not make sense in 
light of the notes and what is on those notes--like ``vacuum the Rose 
Law Firm files'' being treated as though they ought to clean them up. 
Let me tell you. There is a lot here. There is a lot here, and I do not 
think we should ignore it even though we should make every effort to be 
just and fair to everybody concerned.
  I certainly will make every effort to do that and will insist that 
everybody else do likewise.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I really want to address this 
suggestion by my colleague from Utah of the double standard and his 
reference back to Iran-Contra because, if there is any double standard 
at work, I think it is very amply demonstrated with respect to this 
proposal now to extend indefinitely this inquiry.
  Let me go back into that Iran-Contra matter because my colleague from 
Utah says, well, if this were a Democratically controlled Congress and 
a Republican administration, you would really be seeing things 
differently.
  Now, in early 1987, when Congress was considering establishing a 
special committee on Iran-Contra, some Members advocated that it have a 
long timeframe extending right into the 1988 election. There was a 
conflict between some Democrats both in the House and Senate who wanted 
no time limitations placed on the committee and Republican Members who 
wanted the hearings completed within a matter of a few months. It was 
pointed out at the time, although it really escaped no one's attention, 
that an investigation that spilled into 1988 would be very political 
since that was a Presidential election year.
  Senator Dole was very strong in his comments about the necessity to 
have a fixed time for the conduct of that inquiry. Now, that is a 
Republican administration, a Democratic Congress. This is the double 
standard issue that my colleague raised. He said, and I quote him:

       If we get bogged down--

  This is Senator Dole--

     get bogged down in finger pointing; in tearing down the 
     administration--we are just not going to be up to the 
     challenges ahead. All of us--all Americans--will be the 
     losers.

  And he pressed repeatedly for an ending date for that inquiry.
  Now, the Democratically controlled Congress responded to that 
representation, and both Senator Inouye, who was selected to chair the 
special committee, and Congressman Hamilton, who was selected as its 
vice chair, recommended rejecting the opportunity to prolong the 
hearings and to exploit President Reagan's difficulties for political 
purposes. In fact, they set a termination date, and Senator Dole 
welcomed that. In fact, he said:

       I am heartened by what I understand to be the strong 
     commitment of both the chairman and vice chairman to avoid 
     fishing expeditions; and to keep the committee focused on the 
     real issues here.

  Now, if we do not want a double standard, I ask my Republican 
colleagues, why will they not respond now as the Democrats responded in 
1987?
  Senator Dole went on to say:

       We ought to be able to shorten that time, expedite it and 
     complete work on this matter. . .

  In fact, that is what happened. As I indicated earlier, in order to 
complete

[[Page S1573]]

work, the Iran-Contra committee held 21 days of hearings in the last 
month in order to complete its work, a record that stands in marked 
contrast with what this committee has done. It has, over a 2-month 
period here at the end, instead of moving expeditiously in order to 
finish its work, held only 15 days of hearings. So if you want to talk 
about a double standard, there is the double standard. The double 
standard is the comparison between how the Democratically controlled 
Congress handled the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987 and how the 
Republican-controlled Senate is seeking to handle the Whitewater 
hearings in 1996.
  Now, we agreed in the resolution that was passed last May by an 
overwhelming bipartisan vote that this inquiry should come to an end on 
February 29. It is my very strongly held view that, if the committee 
had intensified its hearings schedule comparable to what the Iran-
Contra committee did in 1987 or comparable to the earlier intense 
effort that this very committee pursued last summer, we could have 
completed our work by February 29 as provided in the resolution. We 
could have completed it within the budget and a request for an 
indefinite extension and for another $600,000 would never have been 
necessary.
  Regrettably, that kind of work schedule was not followed. In effect, 
we had a drawn-out procedure over 2 months when the committee could 
have been very hard at work, since the Senate was not in session, and 
we failed therefore to carry through all of the hearings that were 
being projected.
  Now, I think the reason we failed is we did not intensify the hearing 
schedule, and, therefore, I think the responsibility for that rests 
upon those who were directing the hearings in terms of the schedule 
they laid out and its lack of intensity.
  Nevertheless, Senator Daschle, in an effort to be accommodating and 
reasonable, indicated that he was willing to extend the hearings for 
another 5 weeks into early April in order for the committee to complete 
its matters. I regard that as a very reasonable proposal. It has not 
drawn a response from my Republican colleagues, who continue to adhere 
and insist upon their original position, which was an indefinite 
extension of this inquiry into a Presidential election year, thereby 
virtually guaranteeing that it is going to be a partisan political 
endeavor.
  We worked hard to prevent it from being a partisan political endeavor 
when we established the committee and when we set the parameters of its 
work, including completion of its work by February 29 of this year--in 
other words, well before we got into the election year, barely into the 
primary period. We wanted to bring it to a close so it did not carry on 
and therefore raise in the public mind, I think, very legitimate 
questions that this matter was being pressed for political reasons.
  Prolonging the investigation well into a Presidential election year, 
in my judgment, cannot help but contribute to a public perception that 
this investigation is being conducted for political purposes, and that 
is exactly what is happening. We are now getting editorials in 
newspapers across the country that are making exactly that point. The 
Greensboro, NC, paper editorialized:

       Whitewater Hearing Needs to Wind Down. A legitimate probe 
     is becoming a partisan sledgehammer. The Senate Whitewater 
     hearings, led since last July by Senator Al D'Amato, 
     Republican of New York, have served their purpose. It's time 
     to wrap this thing up before the election season.

  The Sacramento Bee to the same effect, saying they now want to extend 
the hearings indefinitely, as they say, ``or at least one presumes 
until after the November election.''
  They go on to make the point that the independent counsel, Kenneth 
Starr, will continue his work on any matters that can be left to him. 
In fact, it is only the independent counsel who can bring criminal 
charges in this matter in any event, not something that the Senate 
committee can do.
  I think that Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader, has put forward 
a reasonable proposal. The committee ought to be able to conclude its 
work with a short extension of time. I think that is the path that we 
ought to follow and avoid pressing this matter throughout the election 
year and the creating the perception that it is being conducted for 
political purposes.
  In fact, Chairman D'Amato, when he went to the Rules Committee last 
year, stated that--I quote him--``We wanted to keep it out of that 
political arena, and that is why we decided to come forward with the 1-
year request.'' That was the right approach then. It was reflected in 
the action taken by the full Senate.
  The majority's proposal now for another $600,000 and an open-ended 
period of time will project this investigation into the election 
season, thereby inevitably diminishing public confidence in the 
impartiality of the inquiry. That is not the right approach. The time 
suggested by the minority leader should be more than adequate for the 
Arkansas phase of this investigation. It will save public money and it 
will complete the job. That is what we ought to be about.
  The double standard--the double standard--is reflected in the 
difference in the position of my Republican colleagues with respect to 
the length of time for this inquiry and the position they took in 1987 
with respect to the inquiry in Iran-Contra. It is also reflected in the 
fact that in 1987, the Democratic majority in the Congress agreed--
agreed--to the representation by our Republican colleagues that we 
ought to have an end date and not prolong the matter into the political 
year. Senator Inouye and Chairman Hamilton agreed with that 
representation. That is the process that we followed.
  My Republican colleagues refuse now to accede to the same process, 
thereby clearly applying a double standard to this matter. Madam 
President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, may I inquire, are the managers controlling 
time, or may I seek time in my own right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no control of time.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, let me preface my remarks this afternoon, if I may, by 
acknowledging the very difficult decisions that Senators on both sides 
of the aisle have to make over the coming days--I hope it is days and 
not weeks--on this issue.
  Let me also preface my remarks by, first of all, commending and 
thanking my colleague from Maryland who has been the ranking member of 
the Banking Committee and has handled the lion's share of the work on 
our side of the aisle over these past many months and demonstrated, I 
think, remarkable patience and a great sense of cooperation.
  I do not know the exact number, but I think there has been only a 
handful of incidents in the last sets of hearings that we have had over 
the past year and a half where there has been any real disagreement at 
all between the majority and the minority, thanks to the leadership of 
the Senator from Maryland, cooperating and working with, I might say, 
of course the Senator from New York, the chairman of the committee. I 
think it is important for all our colleagues to know the tremendous 
amount of work that the Senator from Maryland has done.
  Let me also say I appreciate the job of the Senator from New York. It 
is not an easy job to be chairman of a committee, particularly one that 
has the responsibilities as this committee has had over the past 270 
days to try and sort out the various differences that exist.
  But nonetheless, it will be, to some, a difficult decision. For 
others, I do not think it is that difficult a decision, given the 
amount of time we have spent.
  Conducting a thorough Senate investigation is hard and painstaking 
work. Certainly I can appreciate the dilemma in which some of the 
people in the majority find themselves, particularly when there are 
those who come to them and say, ``Look, you must vote with us here 
regardless of what your own feelings may be on this issue. We have to 
have your vote. Stick with us on this.''
  We have all at one time or another, I suppose, been confronted by 
those who

[[Page S1574]]

have asked us to ``stay with them,'' as the usual expression goes, even 
though our own views may be otherwise.
  I am especially sensitive to that difficulty, because I well remember 
my own experience with the debate on a matter, not unlike the one 
before us this afternoon, involving President Bush's role in the so-
called October Surprise of 1991 and 1992.
  Some of my colleagues may remember there were allegations in late 
1991 that President Bush, when he was Ronald Reagan's running mate in 
1980, had had secret meetings with the Iranian Government to urge that 
Government not to release the American hostages until after the 1980 
Presidential elections, thus avoiding the October Surprise that might 
have lifted President Carter to reelection. There was an enormous hue 
and cry in the media about those allegations, and a little bit of 
excitement among some of our colleagues who viewed this as an 
opportunity to do some damage to President Bush, as we went into the 
1992 elections. There were many, many articles, many, many stories, 
many, many editorials, about those allegations.

  Mr. President, I believed at the time that those allegations--after 
looking at the charges that were made and the information that was 
being offered to support those conclusions, I thought that the 
conspiracy theories that were being hatched by those who wanted to 
bring those hearings to bear were motivated principally, in my view at 
the time, by politics. For those reasons, Mr. President, I, along with 
others opposed that investigation. And I hope that some of my 
colleagues in the majority do so now, despite the pressures that I am 
sure members of the majority are getting today to vote for open-ended 
hearings with a $600,000 appropriation are getting--in fact, I know it 
is the case because a number of our colleagues have basically told me 
they think this is a waste of time and money. But this sense of staying 
together because we have 34 weeks to go before election day, and 
everybody sort of linking arms here, let us not let this get out of 
hand here. If anyone deviates or breaks ranks, of course, this falls 
apart. I know what that is like.
  So as a result of several of us voting differently, those hearings 
did not go forward. They ended, much to the disappointment, I might 
say, of a number of our colleagues who felt we should have gone 
forward. The reason I raise that is not to suggest somehow that the 
Senator from Connecticut deserves any particular commendation, but to 
hope there might be some colleagues today who are faced with a similar 
fact situation and might respond similarly, when we know, frankly, that 
an additional $600,000--$400,000 in consulting fees--an open-ended 
investigation, at this juncture, with respect to those involved, has 
gone on too long.
  The overwhelming majority of people in this country think, frankly, 
it has gone on too long. It has been 270 days, the longest 
congressional investigative hearings--to the best of my knowledge--in 
the history of the U.S. Congress. Twenty months. The Watergate hearings 
went on 16 or 17 months; Iran-Contra, 6 or 7 months, from January 1987 
through August 1987. Those I remember very, very well because the now 
majority leader, Robert Dole, came to Senator Inouye and Chairman 
Hamilton--in 1987 now, not 1988--and said, ``Even though you have the 
right under the resolution to go until October of that year, can we not 
wrap these up in August?'' I will tell you why. Because it was getting 
involved in election-year politics. Let us get it done early. Dan 
Inouye, the Democratic Senator from Hawaii, and Lee Hamilton, a 
Congressman from Indiana, who cochaired those investigations, agreed 
with the then-minority leader Dole to wrap up those hearings in August, 
so that they would not contaminate the political season 1 year out--not 
34 weeks out, but 1 year out.
  As a result of that, the Iran-Contra hearings were completed by early 
August 1987, if my memory serves me well. I think, as our distinguished 
colleague from Maryland pointed out, there were 21 hearings, in fact, 
conducted between early July 1987 and early August 1987, in order to 
accommodate the then-minority leader's request.
  Now here we are 34 weeks away, after 20 months of hearings, 270 days, 
50 actual hearings, 100 witnesses, and 50,000 documents have been 
turned over. I do not know how many people have been through 
depositions. And it is nothing, by the way, even remotely close to 
Iran-Contra in allegations. I remind my colleagues to remember the days 
when Fawn Hall was stuffing documents into her cowboy boots, sneaking 
into the White House, or they had shredding parties at the White House, 
they called them, to destroy documents. Nothing like that has been 
alleged here.
  We have documents that have turned up. I know our colleagues have 
gone on at some length--I think, entirely appropriately--to examine 
what happened there. None of us has suggested that we ought not to look 
into that. But as I pointed out in the past, in every single case where 
these documents have emerged, nothing in them contradicts anything we 
learned earlier. Had these documents produced contradictory evidence, 
the suspicions about showing up late, or in some other place, would 
have much more credibility. But everything we found in the documents 
that came later has corroborated what we knew earlier. It does not 
excuse the fact they showed up late.
  Again, we may never know the answers completely. But to suggest there 
is a great conspiracy here is not borne out by the facts of what was in 
the documents once discovered.
  So my basic plea, Mr. President, is for some Members on the other 
side to join us, and we could end this. Ending it is not to terminate 
it tomorrow, from our perspective. The Senator from Maryland and the 
minority leader have offered five more weeks of hearings, almost 
$200,000 more in money, beyond the almost $1.5 million we have spent in 
the last 2 years just in the Senate, and one more month beyond that to 
write the report. So it is a proposal to go to the end of May. That is 
about 20 weeks away from election day, not a year as we were in 1987. 
Yet, we are being told flatly that that is unacceptable.
  Mr. President, you might understand the frustration we feel in all of 
this. That is not an unreasonable request. The original agreement was 
to end in February. We had snow days. We had a disagreement over the 
executive privilege argument, which took some days. You can make a case 
that you need a bit more time. But we entered into those agreements 
almost unanimously, with maybe two or three dissenting votes. But when 
you end up with almost all of the Senate voting overwhelmingly to 
conduct the hearings and to do the second phase and to agree on the 
termination date, and to be told on February 29, ``Sorry, we are going 
to ask for $600,000 more and no date certain when we end them,'' 
despite the fact that we are weeks away from election, knowing full 
well that the mere fact that you are having these hearings would create 
the kind of damage we would like to cause, that is why we are upset 
about this. This is no great joy to be engaged in a lengthy debate and 
discussion here. We ought not to be doing this.
  Here we are, and we hold one hearing on Medicaid all last year--one, 
despite the proposals to cut $240 billion out of that program. I think 
we had two or three hearings on education, and virtually no hearings on 
health care at all. Then we sit around and wonder why it is that Pat 
Buchanan seems to be igniting some support when he talks about jobs and 
people and they see us suspending maybe a week on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate debating the Whitewater hearings. We had 10 or 12 days on Waco. 
I do not know how many House hearings and Senate hearings there were on 
Ruby Ridge. I think there is value in looking at those issues, but this 
is going beyond the pale, going too far. It is going way too far.
  So we are urging, Mr. President, that some Members of the majority 
stand up and join us in this compromise proposal to bring a conclusion 
to these hearings and to do so in a reasonable way, with a reasonable 
amount of dollars. We are the ones on the committee who have to sit 
there day after day. We are prepared to do it.
  I remember in the summer of 1994, when we sat there 12, 13 hours a 
day in order to wrap this up. We went late into the night to do it. If 
it takes that, then let us do it. We are prepared to do that, to bring 
this to closure. So we are urging colleagues to join us in this 
proposal, in this effort.

[[Page S1575]]

  Mr. President, I went over some of the earlier points. It may be 
worth it to reiterate some of the things that happened. The Senate's 
Whitewater investigation began in 1994, with bipartisan support. 
Bipartisan support was continued in May 1995 when the Senate 
overwhelmingly approved Senate Resolution 120 to create the Special 
Committee To Investigate Whitewater.

  Since 1994, there have been more than 50 hearings, as I have 
mentioned, with testimony from well over 100 witnesses, after detailed 
examination of more than 45,000 pages of documents. By the way, Mr. 
President, it is worthwhile to note that here, unlike in other 
congressional investigations, not a single witness from the White House 
came other than voluntarily, and several witnesses came on many 
occasions.
  Other than the argument over attorney-client privilege--which is a 
legitimate argument--every single document received we received 
voluntarily. There has been no effort here to fight for the release of 
documents at all except when there was a legitimate question about 
attorney-client privilege and executive privilege. Those only occurred 
in very rare cases. Beyond that, in every other instance, we had a 
tremendously cooperative White House on this.
  I think the documentation is about fifty-fifty: About 10,000 or 
12,000 pages of White House representation, and 12,000 from the 
Clintons' files themselves that have come into the committee's 
possession for examination. It is hard for those who pushed for this 
investigation to admit that nothing new has been turned up. Yet, that 
is the case.
  I might point out in addition to the moneys we have spent of almost 
$2 million, not including what we may be spending now with this 
additional request, the Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro law firm out on the 
west coast has spent several millions of dollars over the last 2 years 
on an independent examination for the RTC, Mr. President, of the Rose 
Law Firm and related matters. As you know, Mr. President, they 
concluded their report in December, but when the new billing records at 
the White House showed up they asked for an extension to determine 
whether or not the conclusions in December would be warranted. They did 
that examination and basically several day ago filed their final 
conclusions after examining these new records and reached the 
conclusion in their words, ``That no more moneys ought to be spent on 
the Whitewater investigation.'' That, in fact, in their view there was 
no proof to substantiate the Clintons' or the law firm's involvement in 
the Madison Guaranty issues. It is a long report, about 170 pages. I do 
not expect my colleagues to read through it but the conclusions are 
there for people to read. Again, that has been completed.
  Then we have the $26 million spent by the independent counsel up to 
now. Again, as our colleague from Maryland pointed out, I believe it is 
$1 million a month; $1 million a month the independent counsel is 
consuming. Nothing we are suggesting here limits the independent 
counsel's investigation. In fact, they can go on in perpetuity. Some 
fear they probably will, if past practice is any indication of future 
conduct. We ought to take a look at that issue at some point, but the 
independent counsel proceeds apparently at $1 million a month with no 
limitations on their work.
  So there is $30 million--more than $30 million--that has been spent 
over 270 days or so, with more hearings than in any other investigation 
in the history of Congress. Is it unreasonable that we say can we not 
wrap this up in 5 weeks--our part of this, in 5 weeks--with $200,000, 
almost a quarter of a million dollars, in additional funding? Is that 
an unreasonable request, particularly when you compare it to the 
request that says we want half a million, not including consulting fees 
for an unlimited amount of time. Which is the more reasonable request 
in light of what we have been through over these past several years?
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. SARBANES. I ask the Senator which is the more reasonable request, 
if you put it in the context of what occurred in 1987 with respect to 
the Iran-Contra hearings in which a Democratically controlled Congress 
was looking into the activities of a Republican administration and had 
Members who were pressing hard for an open-ended investigation that 
would carry well into the 1988 political year. The minority leader of 
the U.S. Senate, then Senator Dole, in early 1987 took a very strong 
position against an unlimited hearing on that matter, pointing out it 
would turn into a political exercise in an election year.

  Senator Inouye, who headed up the select committee on the Senate 
side, and Chairman Hamilton, from the House side, accepted that 
argument and agreed to a limited period of time. In fact, later they 
intensified the schedule in order to finish it earlier in 1987, in 
August, so it would not carry over into 1988.
  Now, if you put it in that context, I say to the Senator, is not the 
proposal made by Senator Daschle an eminently reasonable proposal? I 
heard talk on the floor today that there is a double standard. Someone 
got up and said if this were a Republican President now and a 
Democratic Congress, things would be different. They might well be 
different. They were different in 1987 when we had a Republican 
president and a Democratic Congress, and the Democratic Congress then 
accepted the argument that we did not want to turn it into a political 
exercise in the 1988 election, and carried through and did the 
hearings--did 21 days of hearings in 23 days in order to bring the 
matter to an end.
  Given that history and placing it in that context, does that not make 
the proposal of the minority leader, Senator Daschle, seeking to 
accommodate for the extension of another 5 weeks to do the hearings, a 
far more reasonable proposition than the proposal of Chairman D'Amato 
for an indefinite extension of these hearings throughout the election 
year?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, my colleague from Maryland is exactly right. 
He answers his question with his question. In fact, it obviously is far 
more reasonable.
  Again, I recall the then-minority leader, Senator Dole, making the 
case in part that it was not just the politics. He worried about the 
damage being done to the Presidency, the office of the Presidency. So 
he made that appeal on the basis that we ought not to damage the office 
of the Presidency. Of course, we are well aware that our colleague from 
Kansas, the majority leader, is an active candidate for the office of 
the Presidency today, and yet yesterday in the Rules Committee when the 
matter came up as to whether or not we ought to try and put some 
limitation on this for 5 weeks and a limited amount of money, there was 
a vote.
  Our colleague, Senator Ford of Kentucky, offered an amendment to the 
open-ended proposal and said, ``How about 5 weeks, $185,000, with an 
additional month to wrap it up?'' The majority leader was there for the 
vote. He voted against that and voted for the open-ended proposition. 
Only 5 years ago he was, of course, making a strong case in the other 
direction.
  Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator would yield on that point, what he said 
in the debate in early 1987, ``If we get bogged down in finger 
pointing, in tearing down the President and the administration, we are 
just not going to be up to the challenges ahead, and all of us, all 
Americans, will be the losers.'' Let me repeat that, ``and all of us, 
all Americans, will be the losers.''
  As the Senator from Connecticut pointed out, this was an added 
argument that was made in addition to the argument which was accepted 
by the Democratic majority that the inquiry ought not to be carried 
into the election year. There is this the very point that the Senator 
alluded to just a moment or two ago.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Maryland for raising that point. 
It goes to the heart of what I was suggesting at the outset here, that 
in the conduct of these investigations by and large there has been an 
effort at least on the part of those of us here to seek bipartisan 
accommodation. These are not matters that necessarily ought to fall 
into the area of partisan debate because we recognize the sensitivity 
of them. Hence, over the years, the formation of these committees and 
the allocation of resources, with some minor exceptions, have enjoyed 
bipartisan support.
  As the Senator from Maryland points out, it was, in fact, the 
leadership of

[[Page S1576]]

the majority in 1987 that agreed with the minority and accommodated 
their request to not allow those hearings to spill over into the fall 
of 1987, a year away from election day. Not 34 weeks away from election 
day, a year away from election day.

  I might point out that resolution called for the termination of the 
Iran-Contra hearings in October 1987. That was the termination date. We 
moved it back and finished the work in August, a year and a half before 
the election, because the request from the then-minority leader was 
that this might contaminate the election season.
  Yet here, after the longest investigatory hearings in the history of 
Congress, 50 hearings, 100 witnesses or more and all of the information 
we have accumulated and collected, to a request to wrap this up 6 
months--less than 5 months, less than that--before election day, the 
answer is a resounding, ``No. Tough. We have something going here 
politically and we are going to ride this one down the road here, even 
though we have no information or no evidence of any wrongdoing--not 
even any wrongdoing; any unethical behavior--we are going to ride this 
one out because, who knows, maybe we can get something going here.''
  This is a very unhealthy thing for this body to be doing, very 
unhealthy. It invites a kind of deterioration in the comity that is 
essential in this body to get anything done, when we engage in this 
kind of practice.
  Mr. President, what we are confronted with here, then, is obviously 
the dilemma the majority is in--which should be a dilemma which is not 
that difficult to resolve but nonetheless is a dilemma--do you push, on 
the one hand, for an extension of the hearings that we have already 
conducted for such a lengthy period of time deep into the Presidential 
campaign season and thus undermine, in my opinion, the integrity of the 
Senate with what will appear to be, at least it does to many, a purely 
partisan attack on the President? Or do you admit that the 
investigation has turned up no new evidence of illegal or unethical 
behavior and risk the vocal wrath of those on the fringes for whom the 
very absence of proof is in itself evidence of a coverup? A true 
Hobson's choice, in many ways, for the majority leader and the 
majority.
  At this point, I think it is appropriate to ask if it was necessary 
for the Senate to even reach this point. I do not believe so. One of 
the key provisions of Senate Resolution 120 was a requirement that the 
special committee conclude its business by February 29, 1996. By 
adopting a date specific to terminate the special committee, the Senate 
as a body wisely--wisely--intended to eliminate the taint of partisan 
politics from the committee's work and to avoid the kind of pressures 
that come from outside fringe groups that demand a continuation of our 
work in perpetuity. That is why, unanimously, we agreed on that date.
  Now, we understand we may need a few more days. We understand that.
  But we avoid the very problem that we have now found ourselves in by 
establishing those kind of dates. By the way, I went back and 
researched this. There is not a single investigation that I could find 
done by the Senate of the United States over the past 30 years that did 
not have a termination date in the original resolution that established 
the committee. Wisely the Senate has done so to avoid the kind of 
problem we get into when you have open-ended investigations with no end 
in sight. Therefore, we put that in the resolution.
  In adopting a cutoff date well in advance of the 1996 Presidential 
elections, the Senate was following the same procedures advocated by 
the majority leader, as pointed out by our colleague from Maryland, 
back in 1987 when he then as minority leader successfully argued for 
the limiting of the duration of the special committee to investigate 
the Iran-Contra affair. Of course, as this deadline approaches we find 
ourselves operating in a far different political landscape than we were 
in the months following the 1994 congressional elections. The enhanced 
political position of the President has led some to speculate that the 
proposed extension is little more than a desperate, nakedly partisan 
attempt to smear the First Family. What is particularly interesting is 
that as the committee moved closer and closer to the deadline which we 
established almost unanimously it actually slowed down the pace of the 
hearings to the point where we held only eight hearings in the entire 
month of February, and none in the last week of February. I remind my 
colleagues there were no votes. The majority leader did not call up any 
votes in the month of February. There were no interruptions. Yet, for 
the entire month we were all around--members of the committee. We had 
eight hearings over 5 weeks, and only one hearing with a single witness 
in the last week of the hearings.
  Mr. President, I also find it interesting that last week the majority 
provided a preliminary witness list indicating that it wanted to call 
as many as 60 to 75 people as witnesses when over a month ago, and 
before we heard from 15 witnesses, the chairman of the committee said 
in response to questions from myself and Senator Sarbanes of Maryland 
that ``we have identified 60 potential witnesses.'' That was on 
February 1, 1996, on page 84 of the transcripts. As I mentioned, we 
have heard from 15 witnesses since that time, leading one to reasonably 
believe that we were down to calling 45 witnesses, or less at this 
point. I say this not to place the chairman of the special committee in 
any embarrassing position but to illustrate the fact that the bar keeps 
getting raised by the majority as to how much time they need to 
complete their inquiries.
  It would be one thing, of course, if we had no precedents to rely 
upon as far as Senate investigations go. But, in fact, we have many 
precedents, including our experience with the Iran-Contra hearings. The 
contrast, as has been pointed out by our colleague from Maryland, could 
not be more stark. When the Iran-Contra hearings entered its final 
months of existence and knew it had a lot of ground to cover, it held 
21 hearings in that 1-month period. Mr. President, that is 21 hearings 
in 1 month by Iran-Contra, compared to 8 in 1 month by the Whitewater 
Committee. Did Senators have more stamina in 1987 than they do in 1996? 
Probably not. I do not think so. But perhaps there was a greater will 
to get the job done by the members of that committee than we have seen 
so far by the members of the Whitewater Committee.
  The majority raises a number of issues to justify an indefinite 
extension of the special committee. But I believe, based on the facts, 
that the alternative that we are offering to this indefinite extension 
will provide ample time for the committee to complete whatever work 
remains. The primary reason cited by my friends on the other side of 
the aisle for continuing these hearings indefinitely has been that the 
White House has failed to cooperate with the committee's investigation. 
That is just fundamentally wrong. To buttress this contention, we are 
told by the majority and it is pointed out by the majority, 
the confrontation over the so-called Kennedy notes--that is the 
lawyer--and the discovery since January of documents are relevant to 
the committee's work. The conclusion drawn by the majority is that the 
White House will delay providing damaging documents until just before 
the committee's termination date and thus an open-ended extension is 
warranted.

  Mr. President, the facts do not justify such a conclusion. First and 
foremost, this administration, as I said earlier, has been more 
cooperative with the committee's investigation than any administration 
in memory. The White House has turned over 14,000 pages of White House 
documents, and the President and the First Lady's personal attorney 
have turned over in excess of 10,000 to 20,000 pages of additional 
documents.
  Furthermore, every administration official has been made available to 
the committee and has testified voluntarily--every single one of them 
without the promise of immunity that Congress was required to give 
members of the previous administration during the Iran-Contra hearings.
  Many of us in the Senate well remember the actions of the previous 
two administrations with respect to the Iran-Contra investigation. Who 
can forget the time we heard about high-level national security 
officials holding shredding parties at the White House? In fact, the 
top two Reagan officials in White House deleted over 5,000 e-mails in 
the hours just before they both resigned in disgrace from their 
positions;

[[Page S1577]]

5,000 e-mails were destroyed just hours before they submitted their 
resignations. And yet we did those hearings in 6 months. Who can forget 
the image of Fawn Hall stuffing sensitive documents into her boots so 
they could be spirited out of the White House before investigators 
could examine them?
  Many of us remember the changing memory of top officials who refused 
for 6 years to turn over documents to the independent counsel, Lawrence 
Walsh, despite repeated demands to do so. None of that has happened 
here.
  What have we received? We have received as a good-faith effort by the 
White House to comply with the innumerable and frequently overly broad 
requests of the special committee. Perhaps there would be more 
credibility to the allegations if the documents that have been turned 
over since January offered startling new evidence of wrongdoing, or if 
they contradicted previous testimony. But the fact is that all of these 
documents--yes, even the ones we found just recently--confirm the 
information that has been provided to the special committee in previous 
evidence; in every single case.
  Far from revealing the smoking gun, these documents provide 
exculpatory evidence that there was no illegal or unethical activity by 
the President or the First Lady or administration officials. We have 
also been told by the majority, citing the controversy over producing 
the so-called Kennedy notes as a reason for why the committee cannot 
complete its work on time. The fact of the matter is that there was a 
legitimate dispute between the committee and the White House over the 
legitimate claims of attorney-client privilege. To simply dismiss the 
White House concerns on this issue is nothing more than obstructionism. 
But as Geoffrey Hazzard, a noted professor of law, stated in a letter 
to the White House at the time of this controversy, and I quote from 
it:

       Presidents of both political parties have asserted the 
     privilege. This position is, in my opinion, correct reasoning 
     from such precedents as can be applied. Accordingly, the 
     President can properly invoke the attorney-client privilege.

  I am not trying to reopen the debate on this issue which ended after 
mutually satisfactory negotiations with the committee getting all the 
documents it had requested, but to put to rest an assertion that there 
was no basis for the White House to be concerned with inadvertently 
waiving the President's right to confidential communications with their 
attorneys.
  There are some observers who believe that the entire controversy over 
the so-called Kennedy notes was orchestrated by the majority to create 
a conflict within the White House over providing documents. The reason 
for that belief is that there has been a strong tendency on the part of 
the committee to make document requests that are so broad as to make 
compliance virtually impossible. There are numerous examples of this, 
not just a few. But I particularly remember when the majority wanted to 
subpoena--listen to this--all of the telephone records from the White 
House to area code 501, which just so happens to be the entire State of 
Arkansas--all of the telephone records of the entire State of Arkansas. 
That was the subpoena request. If you think I am making this up, that 
is the kind of request we were getting.
  Senator Kerry of Massachusetts and I asked majority counsel for the 
basis of such a broad request, and let me quote from the hearing 
transcript.

       Senator Kerry. That's the entire State of Arkansas. You 
     want calls to the entire State of Arkansas from the White 
     House for 5 months?
       Majority counsel. I don't know what the area code 501 
     encompasses.
       Senator Dodd. It's the entire State. You ought to know that 
     before you put it in a subpoena.

  There you have a case where here we are subpoenaing an area code and 
counsel says, I don't know what it encompasses. We are just going to 
throw the net out here. You wonder why we are frustrated and angry over 
how this is proceeding.
  Ultimately, the subpoena was narrowed, thanks to the efforts of the 
Senator from Maryland, to a legitimate framework. But that small 
example, that one example I hope gives our colleagues a flavor of the 
difficulty faced by the White House during these proceedings. It seems 
that every time the majority makes a document request, it starts out so 
broad that days or weeks of negotiations are necessary before the 
request can be complied with. Thus, the question might not be why the 
White House takes so long to comply with the document requests but, 
rather, why the majority consistently chooses to frame those requests 
in a way that ensures the maximum amount of time will elapse before 
there can be compliance with the request. That is one of the reasons 
for the delay.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DODD. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. SARBANES. Is the Senator familiar with the request that was made 
for all communications between anyone on the White House staff, current 
or past, and 50 named individuals over an 18-month period on any 
subject whatsoever? Let me repeat that. That was the initial request. 
For any communication between anyone on the current White House staff 
or past White House staff and an enumerated list of more than 50 people 
over an 18-month period on any subject whatsoever. And, of course, the 
response to that is that this is so broad it is just impossible to 
comply with. And eventually, by interaction, and so forth, it was 
narrowed down to more relevant time periods, to more relevant 
individuals, and to more relevant subjects. And then, once that was 
done, we were able then in a reasonable period of time to get 
compliance from the White House. But that is another example along the 
lines of the 501 area code, which the Senator cited, of the problems we 
have confronted.
  Now, as the Senator indicated earlier, I generally joined with the 
majority in the various document requests, but I refused to do it in 
those few instances in which the requests were so broad that they 
literally were not possible reasonably to comply with. And then, over 
time, eventually we were able to narrow those down, put them in a 
reasonable framework and then put them forward and get compliance.
  Now, the White House has now responded to every request that has been 
made to them as of today with the exception of two new requests made in 
the last couple of weeks with respect to e-mails. These were additional 
e-mail requests, beyond the ones that have previously been made. So 
there has been an effort on their part to comply with some of the most 
broad and sweeping and onerous requests that I think anyone could 
imagine.
  Mr. DODD. I appreciate my colleague making that point. I wonder if my 
colleague would agree that it is not unreasonable for those who watch 
those kinds of requests to begin to question whether or not there is an 
intentional desire to provoke a delay, knowing full well that such a 
broad request is going to have to be unacceptable, so that time is 
consumed narrowing the request to a reasonable level so that the White 
House in this case can respond. I do not know how long my colleague 
actually spent in those cases to actually narrow the subpoenas down to 
a reasonable level. May I inquire. Was it several days?

  Mr. SARBANES. Certainly. More than that. More than that. And the 
White House's response to these overly broad requests is, What can we 
do with this? We have to get more rationality into the request if we 
are to respond to it in a reasonable period of time.
  That has been one of the problems throughout.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for that additional information which 
I had forgotten, but it is a very good point indeed. Any communication 
to, was it 18 employees? Did I hear it correctly?
  Mr. SARBANES. No, no, it was between anyone on the White House 
staff----
  Mr. DODD. Anyone?
  Mr. SARBANES. Current or past, and 50 people, named people over an 
18-month period on any subject matter whatsoever. That was the original 
request. That was not the request that was finally responded to because 
we were able, by working together, to narrow the request in a way that 
we were able to limit the number of people, the subject matter, and the 
time period so it become manageable.
  Mr. DODD. That is incredible.
  Mr. SARBANES. This was the original thing we were confronted with.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. I apologize. I thought it was 18. It 
was 18

[[Page S1578]]

months, every single employee, past or present, in this administration 
over an 18-month period.
  Mr. SARBANES. On the White House staff, yes.
  Mr. DODD. I should complete my remarks at that particular point. I 
think that makes the case. It is a better example than almost the 
entire area code of a State.
  Mr. President, another reason we have been given as to why the 
committee should be extended indefinitely--and let me emphasize this 
indefinite extension--is that we must wait until the independent 
counsel has completed his trial of Governor Tucker, Jim McDougal and 
Susan McDougal, in Arkansas. That trial is scheduled, after several 
delays, to begin on March 4--in fact, it is underway--and to last from 
6 to 10 weeks.
  However, the idea of waiting for Mr. Starr's trial to end is contrary 
to the bipartisan position taken by the special committee just a few 
months ago. On October 2 of last year, the chairman and Senator 
Sarbanes sent a letter to Mr. Starr. Let me quote from this letter, if 
I may. This is from the chairman of the Whitewater Committee and 
Senator Sarbanes, joint signatures. The letter says:

       If the special committee were to continue to defer its 
     investigation and hearings, it would not be able to complete 
     its task until well into 1996.

  They continued saying:

       We have now determined that the special committee should 
     not delay its investigation of the remaining matters 
     specified in Senate Resolution 120. We believe that the 
     concerns expressed in your letter do not outweigh the 
     Senate's strong interest in concluding its investigation and 
     public hearings into the matter specified in Senate 
     Resolution 120 consistent with section 9 of the resolution.

  Section 9 of the resolution is the provision that requires the 
special committee to complete its work by February 29, 1996.
  So the committee is specifically on record, it is on record, as 
opposed to delaying its work in order to accommodate the trial going on 
in Arkansas. One cannot help but wonder what has changed other than the 
political situation to prompt the chairman to unilaterally change his 
mind on this fundamental issue.
  There is one critical fact that I hope my colleagues will not lose 
sight of during the course of these debates, and that is that our 
decision about extending the committee will not affect the 
investigation of the independent counsel by one iota. There are no 
limits, none, on either the duration of Mr. Starr's investigation or 
its scope or its cost, for that matter--none whatsoever. As a matter of 
fact, the independent counsel recently requested and received 
permission to expand his inquiry to include matters from 1992 that were 
not originally part of his mandate.
  I hope that those Senators who might worry that ending our 
investigation will somehow give the Clintons a free ride will certainly 
want to know what Mr. Starr is doing down in Little Rock with a staff 
of 30 attorneys, 100 investigators, and a cost to the taxpayers of $1 
million a month on top of the $26 million he has already spent.
  That would be a good inquiry, maybe extend these hearings. Maybe we 
ought to do an investigation of how that investigation is being done--
$26 million. You have more lawyers down there than you do focused on 
organized crime in some of our major cities. The American public might 
want to know how their tax money is being spent with that kind of an 
effort.
  Given the absence of any compelling factual basis to continue these 
hearings, Mr. President, the alternative that we have proposed through 
the minority leader, Senator Daschle, I think is more generous in 
allowing the committee to complete whatever task the majority feels 
must still be accomplished.
  You know, Mr. President, in some ways I regret we did not do what the 
minority had done back in 1987. In retrospect, maybe we should have had 
the minority leader, Senator Daschle, approach the majority last fall 
and ask to wrap up these hearings early, as Senator Dole did in 1987. 
Remember what I said earlier, the original termination date was October 
of 1987. Senator Dole came in the spring and said, ``Can't we get this 
done early, get it done by August, in order to avoid the campaign 
season of 1988? Can't you get it done in August of 1987, not in October 
when it gets into the campaign season?''
  Maybe we should have approached the majority last fall and said, 
``How about getting this done earlier?'' Then maybe we might have 
finished around February. Instead, we thought it was on the level. In 
fact, it was set at February 29 as a reasonable time, and then because 
you may need a few extra days, we have suggested 5 more weeks, almost a 
month and a half more of hearings, and an additional month to file the 
report, and almost $200,000 more to do it, not to mention the 
consultants' fees that are going to be spent.
  Our colleagues ought to know that I think a substantial minority or 
maybe a majority of the Senators on this side feel this should have 
ended on the 29th, and that is it. But because Senator Sarbanes and the 
majority leader and others, myself included, made a case, look, a few 
more days here, let us try, and there are additional witnesses we need; 
let us try to wrap this up.
  But I think many people here feel, as the American public does by 
overwhelming majorities--they feel this has gone on too long--$30 
million dollars. It is their money we are spending on this. It is their 
money that is being spent on this, on this investigation that has gone 
nowhere, shown nothing, uncovered nothing. Now they want half a million 
dollars more of your money to spend on this, along with consultancy 
fees for an unlimited amount of time.
  You wonder why the American public get sick and tired of how 
Washington pays attention to itself, is preoccupied with itself, trying 
to get $30 million to spend on hearings instead of looking into what is 
happening to our cities or education or health care or joblessness in 
America. You could not get the votes here for that. But we will spend 
$30 million over 270 days, and 50 hearings, on whether or not something 
happened in the 1980's, 15 years ago, in Arkansas.
  Then we wonder why there is rage in the country over how Washington 
does its business. Well, you get a good taste of it now in this last 
Congress. Not one hearing on Medicare. Whether you agree with the cuts 
or not, the fact that we would propose cutting $240 billion out of the 
safety net for people's health care, and we do not even have a hearing 
to look at it and examine it.
  Oh, but we can spend 50 hearings on this, 10 or 12 hearings on Waco, 
15 hearings on Ruby Ridge. Boy, those are important issues. That is 
just what the American public sent us here for. That is how they want 
their money spent. Now they want an unlimited amount of time and a half 
a million more. And people say, wringing their hands, ``Why are people 
so upset with Washington?'' Well, watch this spectacle over the next 
few days. You do not have to ask yourself the question.
  We ought to wrap this up and get it over with. It has gone on too 
long. The proposal by the minority leader, Senator Daschle, is a 
reasonable one--this body ought not to take 10 minutes to debate it--5 
more weeks, $185,000 to complete its work, and particularly as it is 
coming down, as everyone--everyone--knows in the country.
  It is one thing to engage in politics with your own money, but to 
engage in political activities with the taxpayers' money is insulting. 
It angers people. It makes them angry. They are right to be angry. They 
ought to be angry about this process and watch these votes when the 
votes come up and remember how people vote on this, how quick they are 
to spend their money on this.
  But how unwilling they are when it comes down to your health care or 
your kid's education or your jobs. They are, ``Oh, no, we can't afford 
to do that. We've got to balance the budget, but, by God, we'll spend 
the money on this.'' That is why people are angry in America. And I do 
not blame them.
  So, Mr. President, I hope in the coming days here, over the next day 
or so, that we can reach an understanding here that 5 weeks is plenty 
amount of time. We can hold a lot of hearings in 5 weeks. We can wrap 
this up and put it behind us. It is unhealthy for this institution. It 
does damage to this institution. It does a disservice to the American 
public. So I urge that we come to an agreement on this and move along.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Alaska.

[[Page S1579]]

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, we heard a good deal of rhetoric relative to the 
prevailing attitude of the American people. My good friend from 
Connecticut has indicated that the public has had enough and that 
clearly this side of the aisle is to blame for continuing the efforts 
in the Whitewater probe.
  I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are either not 
listening to the American public or not reading the daily newspapers in 
the United States. I have a list that was compiled a little while ago, 
just a very, very partial list, of the newspapers specifically 
requesting extended hearings--the Washington Times, the Washington 
Post, New York Times, the New York Post, the Times-Picayune, the Times 
Union. And in support of the hearings, there has been the same group of 
newspapers. This is a very, very, very, very small list of those 
newspapers.
  That represents public opinion, Mr. President. That represents the 
public's opinion in light of the overwhelming information that just 
keeps coming out about Whitewater. So much of this information just 
seems to be trickling out of the White House, and the public wants 
answers.
  Let me refer specifically to what I am talking about by referring to 
the chart behind me which clearly makes my point.
  If one looks--I might just make a reflection on a comment that was 
made in the book ``Men of Zeal'' by Senator Cohen and former Majority 
Leader Mitchell.
  I quote:

       The committee's deadline provided a convenient stratagem 
     for those who were determined not to cooperate.

  That, of course, is a commentary on the events surrounding the Iran-
Contra hearings.
  But let us look at the record, Mr. President. And this, Mr. 
President, is why these hearings must be extended. The documents simply 
keep coming. In August of 1995, The committee requested documentation 
from the White House.
  In October it was necessary to send a subpoena to the White House.
  January 5. The Rose Law Firm billing records were produced.
  Records discovered by Carolyn Huber in the White House personal 
residence in August 1995.
  January 29, 1996, and February 7. Mark Gearan's documents produced, 
documents ``inadvertently taken'' from the White House.
  February 13. Michael Waldman's documents produced. Documents found 
``in the course of an office move.''
  Well, let us move to February.
  February 20. Harold Ickes' documents produced. Documents were 
``inadvertently overlooked'' and Mr. Ickes was under ``mistaken 
belief'' that they had been produced earlier.
  February 29. Special committee funding expires. And that, Mr. 
President, is why we are here are today.
  But incredulously, the White House documents just keep coming. March 
1, suddenly Bruce Lindsey's documents are produced. Documents 
``inadvertently were not produced previously.
  March 2. White House produces 166 pages of documents of various 
administration officials, including Lisa Caputo, Neil Eggleston, Bruce 
Lindsey, Bernard Nussbaum, and Dee Dee Myers.
  March 5. Rose Law Firm documents produced. Documents were ``just 
located.''
  Mr. President, look at the facts. Since the funding has expired, we 
have received three separate groups of documentation. Why did that 
occur? Well, one can do some guessing. Perhaps there was some fear of 
the consequences that occur from withholding evidence? And perhaps 
memories were suddenly refreshed when those consequences became more 
apparent.
  Mr. President, do not buy for a minute the argument of the other side 
that somehow this debate is a Republican plot, a partisan plot. Well, 
Mr. President, finding answers to the many unanswered questions about 
Whitewater is not partisan politics. Let's look at what the public 
thinks, as reflected in many editorials from newspapers across the 
nation.
  The Times Picayune:

       Senate Democrats should think twice about filibustering to 
     end the Whitewater investigation committee's attempt to get 
     to the bottom of President and Mrs. Clinton's involvement in 
     Whitewater and related matters. The public would likely 
     simply add Senate Democrats to the list of participants in a 
     suspected coverup.

  I read on:

       But the Senate investigation has not popped up suddenly in 
     this election year, it began 20 months ago, and it's 
     sometimes snail's pace has not had to do with dragging it out 
     until the election year but instead with the White House's 
     determinedly evasive tactics.

  The White House, Mr. President, not the Congress.

       The White House pleads that it is cooperating, but although 
     it has provided the committee reams of requested documents, 
     it still has not provided key documents that might clear the 
     matter up, one way or the other.
       The natural conclusion must be that the Clintons have 
     something to hide, and that if they do not want to make it 
     public, it must not support the Clintons' declarations that 
     they have done nothing illegal or unethical.

  It concludes:

       No matter how this might serve the Democratic campaign 
     interests, it would not serve the public interest. That 
     interest is having the facts, and only then can the public 
     draw its own conclusion.

  Mr. President, the editorial that I just read, is representative of 
many editorials across the United States. So, I ask again, is it only 
the Senate Republicans who wish to get answers about Whitewater? It 
clearly is not. It is the opinion of editorials across the nation, and 
these editorials reflect the attitudes and opinions of the American 
public. Let's look at some more editorials:
  The Washington Post, March 4, entitled ``Twenty Months and 
Counting.'' It reads as follows:

       Twenty months and counting. That is the disdainful cry of 
     Senate Democrats as they rise in opposition to the request of 
     Senate Republicans for an open-ended extension of the now-
     expired Whitewater investigation.
       . . . The committee, for example, has been having an 
     exceedingly tough time obtaining subpoenaed documents or 
     unambiguous testimony from administration officials. Seldom 
     have so many key witnesses had no earthly idea why they did 
     what they did, wrote what they wrote, or said what they 
     said--

  Or if they even remembered it at all.

       . . . White House aides keep dribbling down documents--
     suddenly and miraculously discovered--to the committee. Just 
     when we think we've seen the last of the belated releases, 
     one more turns up. The latest was Friday night, when one of 
     the President's top aides, Bruce Lindsey, produced two pages 
     of notes that he had earlier told the Whitewater committee he 
     didn't remember taking.

  At issue today, as has been the case for some time, is whether the 
Clinton administration has done anything to impede investigations by 
Congress or the independent counsel and whether the Clintons engaged in 
any improper activities in Arkansas while he was Governor and the First 
Lady was partner in the Rose law firm. Nothing illegal on their part 
has turned up yet. For those who are inclined to dismiss any and 
everything that falls under the label of Whitewater as just another 
political witch hunt, it is worth remembering that 16 people have been 
indicted by Federal grand juries as a result of the independent 
counsel's probe and 9 have entered guilty pleas. Congress doesn't have 
the job of sending people to jail. But factfinding is part of the 
congressional job description. The Whitewater Committee should be 
empowered to do just that.
  The St. Petersburg Times has another interesting editorial. And 
again, Senate Republicans did not write these editorials, Mr. 
President. Newspaper editors wrote these editorials; editorials that I 
submit reflect the views of many Americans. Let me quote the last 
portion of an editorial in the St. Petersburg Times, dated February 29:

       There are many . . . compelling reasons for continuing the 
     Senate work, including the criminal Whitewater proceedings 
     that may unearth important new facts. But the most important 
     reason is also the most democratic: Ordinary citizens need to 
     learn what all this is about, what this Whitewater talk is 
     about. While Arkansas' most powerful couple, did the 
     Clinton's trade their public trust for private gain? Since 
     going to Washington have the Clintons and their associates 
     used the power of the presidency to cover their tracks?

  These are painful questions, and not just for the Clintons. Americans 
deserve a President they can trust, someone who embraces questions 
about integrity instead of running from them. If the answers make the 
Clintons' campaign more difficult, so be it. The search for answers 
can't stop now.
  Let me quote the Washington Post of February 29, which is not a 
product of

[[Page S1580]]

this side of the aisle by any means. I read the last paragraph:

       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, 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.

  Again, whose idea is this, Mr. President? This is public opinion 
throughout the Nation through the editorial writers of some leading 
newspapers in this country.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for just a moment on these two 
Post editorials?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will yield at the conclusion of my brief statement.
  Mr. SARBANES. Would it be--
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Please proceed.
  Mr. SARBANES. I ask unanimous consent that these two editorials from 
the Washington Post, that were cited, be printed in the Record, because 
one of them says:

       . . . the Senate should require the committee to complete 
     its work and produce a final report by a fixed date.

  And later it says:

       That would argue for permitting the probe to continue 
     through April or early May.

  The other says:

       The Whitewater committee should be empowered to do just 
     that . . .

  That is, factfinding within a reasonable time and it suggests 2 
additional months.
  So both of these editorials reject the notion that we should have an 
indefinite extension of this hearing.
  I ask unanimous consent that the two editorials be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 29, 1996]

                        Extend, but With Limits

       We noted the other day that the White House--through its 
     tardiness in producing long-sought subpoenaed documents--has 
     helped Senate Banking Committee Chairman Alfonse D'Amato make 
     his case for extending the Whitewater investigation beyond 
     today's expiration date. If one didn't know any better, one 
     might conclude that the administration's Whitewater strategy 
     was being devised not by a White House response team but by 
     the high command of the Republican National Committee.
       However, despite the administration's many pratfalls since 
     Whitewater burst onstage, Sen D'Amato and his Republican 
     colleagues have not provided compelling evidence to support 
     the entirely openended mandate they are seeking from the 
     Senate. There are loose ends to be tied up and other 
     witnesses to be heard, as Republican Sen. Christopher Bond 
     said the other day. But dragging the proceedings out well 
     into the presidential campaign advances the GOP's political 
     agenda; it doesn't necessarily serve the end of justice or 
     the need to learn what made the Madison Guaranty Savings & 
     Loan of Arkansas go off the tracks at such enormous cost to 
     American taxpayers. The Senate should allow the committee to 
     complete the investigative phase of its inquiry; including a 
     complete examination of the Clinton's involvement with the 
     defunct Whitewater Development Corp. and their business 
     relationships with other Arkansas figures involved in 
     financial wrongdoing. But the Senate should require the 
     committee to complete its work and produce a final report by 
     a fixed date.
       Democrats want to keep the committee on a short leash by 
     extending hearings to April 3, with a final report to follow 
     by May 10. A limited extension makes sense, but a 
     unreasonably short deadline does not. Five weeks may not be 
     enough time for the committee to do a credible job. Instead, 
     the Senate should give the committee more running room but 
     aim for ending the entire proceedings before summer, when the 
     campaign season really heats up. That would argue for 
     permitting the probe to continue through April or early May.
       What the Senate does not need is a Democrat-led filibuster. 
     Having already gone bail for the Clinton White House, often 
     to an embarrassing degree, 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. 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 Sen. D'Amato and his committee 
     are taking. * * *
                                                                    ____


                [From the Washington Post, Mar. 4, 1996]

                       Twenty Months and Counting

       That is the disdainful cry of Senate Democrats as they rise 
     in opposition to the request of Senate Republicans for an 
     open-ended extension of the now-expired Whitewater 
     investigation. After conducting more than 50 days of public 
     hearings involving 120 witnesses, taking 30,000 pages of 
     deposition testimony, collecting 45,000 pages of White House 
     documents, spending more than $1.3 million, and compiling a 
     casualty list of near financially destroyed administration 
     officials, what do Whitewater committee Chairman Alfonse 
     D'Amato and his Republican colleagues have to show for it? 
     the Democrats ask. A good question, indeed. But it's not the 
     only one to be answered in deciding whether to extend the 
     life of the committee.
       The committee has been working for more than a year to 
     gather the facts surrounding the collapse of the federally 
     insured Madison Savings and Loan in Little Rock, the 
     involvement of Bill and Hillary Clinton in the defunct 
     Whitewater Development Corp., and the handling of documents 
     and the conduct of White House officials and Clinton 
     associates in the aftermath of Deputy White House Counsel 
     Vincent Foster's suicide. Whitewater, in the hands of 
     congressional Republicans and the independent counsel, is now 
     a much wider-ranging investigation that seeks answers to a 
     host of questions concerning Washington-based actions taken 
     after the administration was in office.
       The committee, for example, has been having an exceeding 
     tough time obtaining subpoenaed documents or unambiguous 
     testimony from administration officials. Seldom have so many 
     key witnesses had no earthly idea why they did what they did, 
     wrote what they wrote, or said what they said--if they owned 
     that they even remembered at all.
       Committee Republicans assert that dozens of witnesses still 
     must be examined. Some will not be available until their 
     trials end. That's the major reason Sen. D'Amato gives for a 
     lengthy open-ended extension. The next has to do with the way 
     White House aides keep dribbling documents--suddenly and 
     miraculously discovered--to the committee. Just when we think 
     we've seen the last of the belated releases, one more turns 
     up. The latest was Friday night, when one of the president's 
     top aides, Bruce Lindsay, produced two pages of notes that he 
     had earlier told the Whitewater committee he didn't remember 
     taking. See what we mean?
       At issue today, as it had been for some time, is whether 
     the Clinton administration has done anything to impede 
     investigations by Congress or the independent counsel and 
     whether the Clintons engaged in any improper activities in 
     Arkansas while he was governor and she was a partner in the 
     Rose Law Firm. Nothing illegal on their part has turned up 
     yet. For those who are inclined to dismiss any and everything 
     that falls under the label of Whitewater as just another 
     political witch hunt, it is worth remembering that 16 people 
     have been indicted by federal grand juries as a result of the 
     independent counsel's probe and nine have entered guilty 
     pleas. Congress doesn't have the job of sending people to 
     jail. But fact-finding is part of the congressional job 
     description. The Whitewater committee should be empowered to 
     do just that, but within a reasonable time. Two additional 
     months, with a right to show cause for more time, makes 
     sense.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have no objection to that. It was my intention to 
include each of these editorials in their entirety, though I would like 
to point out that I only made reference to one Washington Post 
editorial. What I quoted to the President is what I believe reflects 
the difference between the two sides, the Democrats and Republicans. 
What is occurring today is a great deal of finger pointing, and 
unfortunately the finger pointing will likely continue throughout this 
debate.
  Today's debate, Mr. President, reflects a process that has been 
initiated by one side of the aisle. One side of the aisle wishes to 
terminate the process by preventing a vote on this resolution. My 
concern is that the process that they have initiated is based upon 
misconstruing the facts. Let me explain what I mean.
  I think the Senator from Connecticut had used the figure of close to 
$30 million of taxpayers' funds, suggesting that somehow this is 
connected with the activities of our committee. Well, that is not 
factual.
  The Senate has spent $950,000 on the Whitewater investigation. The 
investigation associated with the special counsel, Ken Starr, has spent 
$23 million through 1995. The RTC spent almost $4 million. But to 
suggest by association that the Senate Whitewater Committee is 
responsible for this expenditure is misleading, to say the least, and 
far from the disclosure that is appropriate in this body, where we 
specifically identify each expenditure that is referenced.
  The reality is that the information still keeps coming in, Mr. 
President. There is absolutely no denying that fact. I ask my 
colleagues to address this issue. Is there a reasonable explanation 
relative to why we would still get material coming in when, clearly, 
the authority of the funding for the committee has expired? That is 
evidenced by the activity associated with material that came in on 
March 1, 2, and 5. We may get some more material in today, tomorrow, or 
the next day.

[[Page S1581]]

  Now, that is why this process has to continue. At what time in the 
future will it be appropriate that we make a determination that enough 
is enough? Well, obviously, that is up to the membership of this body 
and whether this body is satisfied with the work of the committee. But 
it is fair to say, Mr. President, that the American public feels that 
this process should continue. The American public is knowledgeable 
enough to be aware that once there is a date certain, the committee 
will face delay after delay from the White House. It's a pattern that 
has been well established. Witnesses and document production would 
likely be nonresponsive until shortly before the committee's next 
deadline. If today this body sets a date certain of when the 
investigation would end, I believe that much of the information that 
the committee would attempt to obtain would never be given the light of 
day.
  Furthermore, there is a trial starting in Little Rock. The relevance 
of that trial to this committee's action has yet to be addressed, but 
it is legitimate and should be part of the ongoing consideration. We 
all know that there may be individuals in that trial that should come 
before our committee and give their testimony. We may have some 
penetrating questions for them. I can certainly say that those of us on 
this side have several questions that we would like to ask, if given 
the opportunity. We hope that opportunity will be extended. But, 
unfortunately, we do not know when that trial is going to be concluded.
  So we could go on and on here with justifications for legitimatizing 
this process. However, bottom-line, we have a responsibility as U.S. 
Senators of oversight; a responsibility to complete the work that was 
authorized by 96 Senators. And to suggest that we do anything less than 
that, or restrict ourselves to a date certain, is absolutely 
irresponsible. I think a majority of the Members of this body recognize 
that for what it is and are prepared to support a continuation of the 
committee's activities, without a date certain.
  Let us face it, it is a political year. We all know that. But we all 
have an obligation in our conscience to address the responsibility 
associated with our office, and that is to do the best job possible, 
recognizing the human limitations associated with an investigation of 
this type and the realization that each person has to vote his or her 
own conscience. Mr. President, that is an obligation and trust that has 
been given to us by our constituents and one we do not take lightly.
  So we may differ on the merits relative to the political 
consequences, but we have a job to do, and it would be absolutely 
irresponsible to suggest that we can set a time certain for that job to 
cease, especially in light of the fact that the committee has had three 
separate submissions of subpoenaed materials that came in after 
February 29, 1996--the date when this investigation was to cease.
  Mr. President, I see my colleague waiting to speak. I will yield the 
floor to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is 
recognized.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I think it is very important that we 
continue to fund the committee's work for a couple of pretty obvious 
reasons. For one, documents are turning up like wildflowers everywhere. 
Every week or so, the Whitewater Committee receives a pile of 
``mistakenly overlooked documents'' from the White House.
  Mr. President, how is it that mistakenly overlooked Whitewater files 
labeled ``Whitewater Development Corporation,'' or that they fail to 
ensure that notes they took in meetings dedicated exclusively to the 
discussion of Whitewater, as part of a Whitewater damage control 
response team, are not produced as part of the subpoena's request?
  Mr. President, if you were going to comply with a subpoena that is 
seeking documents related to Whitewater, would you not start with a 
Whitewater response team? It is obvious that you would.
  Mr. President, that would seem to be the minimum in terms of 
compliance, would it not? Frankly, I am surprised that we are even 
debating today whether to continue funding for the Special Committee To 
Investigate Whitewater. Mr. President, it was only a little more than a 
month ago that the committee first learned of the existence of billing 
records that had been under subpoena for over 2 years. What was 
incredible about their discovery, Mr. President, was that these billing 
records were discovered by a White House aide in the personal residence 
of the White House, probably one of the most secure places in the 
world.
  Mr. President, documents do not have legs. They cannot walk. They 
have to have somebody to carry them. The White House can argue that the 
billing records support the First Lady's prior statements until the 
cows come home. They can argue about what the word ``significant'' 
means, or about what ``minimal'' means. They can rewrite Webster's if 
they want to. But, Mr. President, that will not change the fact that 
these records we are talking about were under subpoena for close to 2 
years and were not produced during that time. Regardless of motive, 
someone had custody of these records while they were under subpoena and 
chose not to produce them.
  Mr. President, the mysterious appearance of these records prompted 
the independent counsel to subpoena the First Lady to testify before 
the grand jury. This unprecedented action by the independent counsel, I 
believe, underscores the seriousness and the importance of the billing 
records' reappearance to this committee's investigation.
  What we do know about the billing records is this. Certainly, what we 
do know is certainly less than what we do not know. What information 
the committee has been able to glean thus far since the records' 
discovery is the following:
  Mr. Foster's handwriting is found all over the billing records in red 
ink.
  Mr. Foster's writing appears to direct questions to the First Lady 
about her billings of Madison Savings & Loan.
  Mr. Foster was the last person that we know of that had possession of 
these records after the 1992 Presidential campaign. And the records 
were found on a table in the book room of the personal residence of the 
White House sometime in late July or early August.
  Mr. President, the committee thus has a sense of who may have had the 
records last, but no answers to the who, what, where, and when of the 
billing records' reappearance. We need that information. More important 
is still what remains unanswered, like, for example, how did the 
billing records end up in the White House personal residence?
  Where have they been for the past 2 years while they have been under 
subpoena?
  Were the records in Mr. Foster's office when he died? If so, who took 
custody of these records after Mr. Foster's death?
  Finally, and most important, who left the billing records on the 
table in the book room of the White House residence?
  As the New York Times so aptly noted in its February 17, 1996, 
editorial, ``Inanimate objects do not move themselves, we all know 
that.''
  These are serious questions, Mr. President, questions that the 
committee and the public deserve answers to. There is nothing partisan 
or politically motivated about trying to uncover the circumstances 
surrounding the much belated discovery of records under subpoena for 
over 2 years. Indeed, answers to these questions, I believe, are 
central to the committee's investigation.
  If Mr. Foster did, in fact, have these records in his possession as 
of his tragic death, how did they move, Mr. President, from the White 
House counsel's office to the personal residence? Obviously, not on 
their own motion. Testimony given before the committee about the Foster 
office search and movement of files to the personal residence leads us 
to some sense of how they may, Mr. President, have made their way to 
the book room. The committee heard testimony from a Secret Service 
officer who swore that he saw Maggie Williams, the First Lady's chief 
of staff, carrying documents out of Mr. Foster's office the night of 
his death. Phone records obtained by the committee, Mr. President, 
showed a spate of early morning phone calls between Ms. Williams, the 
First Lady, Susan Thomases, and Bernie Nussbaum, immediately preceding 
Mr. Nussbaum's decision to renege on his agreement with the Deputy 
Attorney

[[Page S1582]]

General of the United States, Mr. Heymann, on how the search of Mr. 
Foster's office would be conducted.
  A senior White House aide testified that the day of the search, Mr. 
Nussbaum, White House counsel at that time, told him of his concerns 
coming from the First Lady--told of concerns coming from the First Lady 
and Susan Thomases--about law enforcement officials having unfettered 
access to Mr. Foster's office.
  Department of Justice officials have testified before the committee 
as to suspicions and concerns that began to arise after the White House 
reneged on an agreement on how Mr. Foster's office would be searched--
suspicion and concerns, Mr. President, that prompted the Deputy 
Attorney General of the United States at that time, Mr. Philip Heymann, 
to ask the then White House counsel, Mr. Bernie Nussbaum, ``Are you 
hiding something?'' A White House aide testified that later on in the 
day of the search of Mr. Foster's office, he assisted Ms. Williams in 
carrying boxes of materials from Mr. Foster's office to the personal 
residence, during which time Mrs. Williams offered the explanation that 
the materials were personal documents that needed to be reviewed by the 
Clintons.
  Mr. President, Ms. Williams testified that documents were moved from 
Mr. Foster's office to a closet on the third floor, to the personal 
residence of the White House, where they were later reviewed and 
collected by the Clintons' personal attorneys. This testimony, Mr. 
President, in conjunction with the belated discovery of the billing 
records and other Whitewater documents, has only fueled suspicions that 
the White House has not been truthful about the search of Mr. Foster's 
office after his death.

  Mr. President, the many unanswered questions that remain are in truth 
due in large part to the lack of cooperation and evasive tactics coming 
from the White House. While the committee has undertaken to conduct its 
investigation expeditiously, events like the mysterious discovery of 
the billing records, the miraculous location of over 100 pages of notes 
from top White House aides and Whitewater damage control team members, 
undermine the committee's ability to conduct a timely and thorough 
investigation.
  Mr. President, these documents have been under subpoena, as I said, 
for over 2 years, and they only now, Mr. President, surface with 
explanations that confound credibility, such as ``Sorry, mistakenly 
overlooked.'' ``Didn't know you were looking for notes of those 
Whitewater meetings.'' Or, ``I thought they were already turned over to 
the White House counsel.''
  Mr. President, the excuses are too little, and I believe they are too 
late. ``No harm, no foul'' just will not work for the White House 
anymore. The committee and the independent counsel will not and cannot, 
Mr. President, accept misunderstandings, miscommunications, mistakes, 
mismanagement, and general bungling as an excuse by the White House for 
not producing documents that we are legitimately entitled to. I think 
it is time for answers, not excuses.
  Indeed, Mr. President, the White House's lack of cooperation and 
forthcomingness, its defensive posture and its behavior in response to 
the legitimate congressional and law enforcement inquiries has led us 
to where we are today. The White House's handling of the documents in 
Mr. Foster's office after his death and its continued and persistent 
pattern of obstruction and evasion perpetuate the belief they have 
something to hide.
  Last summer, the committee heard testimony about the search of Mr. 
Foster's office after his death. I want to briefly read from the 
committee transcript testimony we heard from Deputy Attorney General 
Philip Heymann, because I believe it clearly reveals why this committee 
and many Americans continue to believe that the White House has not 
been truthful about what went on in the hours following Mr. Foster's 
death.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire script 
beginning on pages 41 of Mr. Heymann's testimony be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        Excerpts of Testimony of Deputy Attorney General Heymann

       Senator Shelby. Okay. At some point on the 21st, it was 
     determined that Roger Adams and David Margolis would be sent 
     over to the White House, as I said, to review documents 
     regarding the relevance and privilege dealing with the Foster 
     investigation, you said that are right.
       Mr. Heymann. That's correct, Senator Shelby.
       Senator Shelby. And the scope of this review, according to 
     your notes, would be looking for anything to do with this 
     violent death. You want to refer to your notes?
       Mr. Heymann. Yes, I have my notes here and that's correct.
       Senator Shelby. Is that correct?
       Mr. Heymann. That's correct.
       Senator Shelby. And it was--was it your understanding by 
     the end of the 21st that an agreement or understanding had 
     been reached between the Department of Justice, the Park 
     Police and the White House over how the search would be 
     conducted, the search of the deputy counsel's office?
       Mr. Heymann. Yes, Senator Shelby, in the sense that we all 
     had agreed on how it would be done. And in what I still think 
     was a very sensible way----
       Senator Shelby. Would you relate what you recall of how 
     the--what you agreed to or thought you had agreed to?
       Mr. Heymann. I'd be happy to. I just wanted to make clear, 
     Senator Shelby, I didn't feel that I had a binding commitment 
     by Mr. Nussbaum or anyone else. We simply all had talked 
     about it by then and we all were on the same track, we all 
     were on the same page, we all thought it would be done in the 
     way I'm about to describe.
       Senator Shelby. Did you think when you sent Mr. Adams and 
     Mr. Margolis over there that it would turn into an 
     adversarial relationship or something close to that?
       Mr. Heymann. No, I did not.
       Senator Shelby. You did not.
       Mr. Heymann. You'd asked me to describe what the 
     understanding was, Senator Shelby.
       Senator Shelby. Yes, sir, that's right. You go ahead.
       Mr. Heymann. The understanding was that they would see, 
     these two senior prosecutors, not the investigators, but the 
     prosecutors would see enough of every document to be able to 
     determine whether it was relevant to the investigation or 
     not. Now, I've been handed some pages from my transcript, but 
     let's assume this is a document, it's about 30 pages long. 
     They would look at this and it says ``deposition of Philip 
     Heymann, re: Whitewater,'' and they would know that that 
     didn't seem to have anything, any likely bearing on the cause 
     of Vince Foster's death. If need be, they might have to look 
     a page or two into it. But the object was to maintain the 
     confidentiality of White House papers to the largest extent 
     possible with satisfying ourselves that we were learning of 
     every potentially relevant document.
       If there was a relevant document, it would be set aside in 
     a separate pile. If the White House counsel's office believed 
     that it was entitled to executive privilege, and therefore 
     should not be turned over to us, we would then have to 
     resolve that: There would be a separate pile of documents; 
     some relevant and would go directly to the investigators some 
     relevant but executive privilege claims, in which case we 
     would have to resolve it perhaps with the assistants of the 
     legal counsel's office of the Justice Department.
       Senator Shelby. Mr. Heymann, did you contemplate that this 
     would be done jointly or just done by the White House 
     counsel?
       Mr. Heymann. I thought it was essential, Senator Shelby, 
     that it be done jointly with these two prosecutors being able 
     to satisfy themselves, and through them satisfy the 
     investigative agencies that whatever might be relevant was 
     being made available to us.
       Senator Shelby. That it would be a bona fide investigation 
     and not a sham; is that right?
       Mr. Heymann. Well, I don't----
       Senator Shelby. Or be a bona fide investigation.
       Mr. Heymann. That it would be an entirely--it would be a 
     review of documents that would be entirely credible to us, to 
     the investigators and to the American public.
       Senator Shelby. Okay. Your notes mention, I believe, Mr. 
     Heymann, that Steve Neuwirth objected to this agreement, but 
     that Mr. Nussbaum agreed with Margolis that it was a done 
     deal; is that correct? You want to refer----
       Mr. Heymann. That is what they reported to me when Mr. 
     Margolis and Mr. Adams returned that evening, the evening of 
     Wednesday the 21st, to the Justice Department.
       Senator Shelby. What do your notes reflect, I was 
     paraphrasing them?
       Mr. Heymann. It said they discussed the system that had 
     been agreed upon, I just described it to you. BN that stands 
     for Mr. Nussbaum, agreed. SN, that stands for Steve Neuwirth, 
     said no. We shouldn't do it that way. The Justice Department 
     attorneys shouldn't have direct access to the files. David 
     Margolis, the Justice Department attorney, said it's a 
     done deal and Mr. Nussbaum at that point said yes, we've 
     agreed to that.
       Senator Shelby. Was it important to you and to the 
     Department of Justice that you represented that the documents 
     be reviewed independently, is that why it was important that 
     the Department of Justice look for relevance and privilege 
     jointly in this undertaking?
       Mr. Heymann. Yes, Senator Shelby. Again, I did not think it 
     was necessary and do not

[[Page S1583]]

     think it was necessary to review documents which we could 
     quickly determine had no relevance to Vince Foster's death. 
     So our attorneys would not have looked at those, that was a 
     clear part of the understanding. Or pages, yeah.
       Senator Shelby. I didn't say. I understand that you 
     received a call from David Margolis the next morning from the 
     White House about the search; is that correct? You want to 
     refer to your notes?
       Mr. Heymann. That's correct, Senator Shelby.
       Senator Shelby. What was this call about?
       Mr. Heymann. He and Roger Adams had gone over with the Park 
     Police and the FBI to do the review we planned.
       Senator Shelby. This was pursuant to the understanding you 
     had with Mr. Nussbaum?
       Mr. Heymann. Pursuant to the understanding of the 21st.
       Senator Shelby. Okay.
       Mr. Heymann. Mr. Margolis told me that Mr. Nussbaum had 
     said to me that they had changed the plan, that only the 
     White House counsel's office would see the actual documents. 
     Mr. Margolis had asked Mr. Nussbaum whether that had been 
     discussed with me and Mr. Nussbaum had said no. I told Mr. 
     Margolis at that point to put Mr. Nussbaum on the phone, and 
     I was----
       Senator Shelby. Did he get on the phone?
       Mr. Heymann. He got on the phone.
       Senator Shelby. What did you say to him?
       Mr. Heymann. I told him that this was a terrible mistake.
       Senator Shelby. Terrible mistake. Go ahead.
       Mr. Heymann. Well, please don't----
       Senator Shelby. That was your words; is that right?
       Mr. Heymann. Yeah--no, no, please don't assume that what I 
     now paraphrase would be the words I actually used. This is 
     740 days ago and it would be quite unreliable to think 
     they're the exact words. I remember very clearly sitting in 
     the Deputy Attorney General's conference room picking up the 
     phone in that very big room. I remember being very angry and 
     very adamant and saying this is a bad--this is a bad mistake, 
     this is not the right way to do it, and I don't think I'm 
     going to let Margolis and Adams stay there if you are going 
     to do it that way because they would have no useful function. 
     It would simply look like they were performing a useful 
     function, and I don't want that to happen.
       The Chairman. You told this to the counsel?
       Senator Shelby. You told this to Nussbaum; is that correct?
       Mr. Heymann. I told this to Mr. Nussbaum.
       The Chairman. But you volunteered this? In other words, it 
     did not come from Mr. Margolis or Mr. Adams? This was your 
     saying I'm not going to keep them here if this----
       Mr. Heymann. I suspect, Senator D'Amato, that when I talked 
     to Mr. Margolis in the same phone conversation shortly before 
     I asked him to put Mr. Nussbaum on the phone he would have 
     said to me something like we have no useful role here, and it 
     would--I would have picked it up from that, and I would have 
     said I don't think I'm going to keep them there. Mr. Nussbaum 
     was, as always, entirely polite and he said--he was taken 
     back by my anger and by the idea that I might pull out the 
     Justice Department attorneys and he said I'll have to talk to 
     somebody else about this or other people about this, and I'll 
     get back to you, Phil.
       Senator Shelby. Did he tell you who he was going to talk 
     to?
       Mr. Heymann. He did not tell me who he was going to talk 
     to.
       Senator Shelby. He didn't tell you or indicate it was the 
     President of the United States or the First Lady?
       Mr. Heymann. He never indicated in any way who he was going 
     to discuss this with, nor has he ever.
       Senator Shelby. Just the phrase I'm going to talk to 
     somebody?
       Mr. Heymann. I'm--just the notion was I have to talk to 
     other people about this. I had obviously shaken him enough 
     that he wanted to consider whether he should come back to 
     what we had agreed to the day before on the 21st, but there 
     were other people involved that he had to talk to about that.
       Senator Shelby. Was it your impression, Mr. Heymann, then 
     that Mr. Nussbaum would get back to you before any review of 
     the documents in the White House was conducted?
       Mr. Heymann. He said to me specifically don't call Adams 
     and Margolis back to the Justice Department. I'll get back to 
     you.
       Senator Shelby. Did he ever call you back?
       Mr. Heymann. He never called me back.
       Senator Shelby. Did you ever consent to the change in the 
     plan in how the search would be conducted, Mr. Heymann?
       Mr. Heymann. I did not.
       Senator Shelby. Did David Margolis or any other law 
     enforcement official have an impression of whether the 
     Department of Justice had consented to this search?
       Mr. Heymann. Mr. Margolis was clear that the Department of 
     Justice had not consented to the changed arrangement. It 
     was--he obviously thought that he was to remain, even if it 
     was changed, because he did remain, but he knew that we had 
     not consented to the changed arrangement and did not approve 
     of it.
       Senator Shelby. You later found out, sir, that the search 
     was conducted with Mr. Nussbaum calling the shots that night; 
     is that right?
       Mr. Heymann. That's correct.
       Senator Shelby. Did you talk to Mr. Nussbaum after that?
       Mr. Heymann. I found that out at about--when Mr. Margolis 
     and Mr. Adams returned the evening of the 22nd----
       Senator Shelby. Returned to your office?
       Mr. Heymann. Returned to my office, I went home to an 
     apartment we were renting then and I picked up the phone and 
     I called Mr. Nussbaum and I told him that I couldn't imagine 
     why he would have treated me that way. How could he have told 
     me that he was going to call back before he made any decision 
     on how the search would be done and then not call back?
       Senator Shelby. What did he say to that?
       Mr. Heymann. I don't honestly remember, Senator Shelby. He 
     was, again, polite. He didn't--there was no explanation given 
     that I would remember. And I remember saying to him, Bernie, 
     are you hiding something. And he said no, Phil, I promise you 
     we're not hiding something.
       Senator Shelby. Did you say to him--and you can refer to 
     your notes if you like--Mr. Nussbaum, you misused us? What 
     did you--if you said that, what did you mean by that? Do you 
     believe then that the White House had something to hide or 
     was worried about the investigation? What was your 
     impression?
       Mr. Heymann. Well, when I said you misused us, or something 
     like that, I meant that he had used Justice Department 
     attorneys in a way that suggested that the Justice Department 
     was playing a significant role in reviewing documents when 
     they had come back and told me they felt like they were not 
     playing any useful role there.
       Senator Shelby. Did you know later that the White House had 
     issued a statement that Justice--something to the effect that 
     the Justice Department was involved in the review of the 
     documents and not just observing, and then they did a 
     correction on that when someone objected, maybe it was your 
     office?
       Mr. Heymann. The following morning it was called to my 
     attention that they had said that the Justice Department and 
     the FBI--I now know it--in the press release it said--well, 
     whatever it was, the Justice Department along with the FBI 
     and the Park Police had supervised the review of documents.
       Senator Shelby. Was that a CBS News report?
       Mr. Heymann. What I was shown at my deposition, Senator 
     Shelby, was, I think, a piece from the Washington Post. I 
     directed that the Department of Justice put out a correction 
     that we had not supervised, that we had simply been there as 
     observers while the investigation was carried out--while the 
     search was carried out by the White House counsel.

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this was a question that this Senator 
asked Mr. Heymann when he was before the committee.

       Senator Shelby. Was it your understanding by the end of the 
     21st that an agreement or understanding had been reached 
     between the Department of Justice, the Park Police and the 
     White House over how the search would be conducted, the 
     search of the deputy counsel's office?
       Mr. Heymann. Yes, Senator Shelby, in the sense that we all 
     had agreed on how it would be done. And in what I still think 
     was a very sensible way----
       Senator Shelby. Would you relate what you recall of how 
     the--what you agreed to or thought you had agreed to?
       Mr. Heymann. I'd be happy to. I just wanted to make clear, 
     Senator Shelby, I didn't feel that I had a binding commitment 
     by Mr. Nussbaum or anyone else. We simply all had talked 
     about it by then and we all were on the same track, we all 
     were on the same page, we all thought it would be done in the 
     way I'm about to describe.
       Senator Shelby. Did you think when you sent Mr. Adams and 
     Mr. Margolis over there that it would turn into an 
     adversarial relationship or something close to that?
       Mr. Heymann. No, I did not.
       Senator Shelby. You did not.
       Mr. Heymann. You'd asked me to describe what the 
     understanding was, Senator Shelby.
       Senator Shelby. Yes, sir, that's right. You go ahead.
       Mr. Heymann. The understanding was that they would see, 
     these two senior prosecutors, not the investigators, but the 
     prosecutors would see enough of every document to be able to 
     determine whether it was relevant to the investigation or 
     not. Now, I've been handed some pages from my transcript, but 
     let's assume this is a document, it's about 30 pages long. 
     They would look at this and it says ``deposition of Philip 
     Heymann, re: Whitewater,'' and they would know that that 
     didn't seem to have anything, any likely bearing on the cause 
     of Vince Foster's death. if need be, they might have to look 
     a page or two into it. But the object was to maintain the 
     confidentiality of White House papers to the largest extent 
     possible with satisfying ourselves that we were learning of 
     every potentially relevant document.
       If there was a relevant document, it would be set aside in 
     a separate pile. If the White House counsel's office believed 
     that it was entitled to executive privilege, and therefore 
     should not be turned over to us, we would then have to 
     resolve that? There would be a separate pile of documents; 
     some relevant and would go directly to the investigators some 
     relevant but executive privilege

[[Page S1584]]

     claims, in which case we would have to resolve it perhaps 
     with the assistants of the legal counsel's office of the 
     Justice Department.
       Senator Shelby. Mr. Heymann, did you contemplate that this 
     would be done jointly or just done by the White House 
     counsel?
       Mr. Heymann. I thought it was essential, Senator Shelby, 
     that it be done jointly with these two prosecutors being able 
     to satisfy themselves, and through them satisfy the 
     investigative agencies that whatever might be relevant was 
     being made available to us.
       Senator Shelby. That it would be a bona fide investigation 
     and not a sham; it that right?
       Mr. Heymann. Well, I don't----
       Senator Shelby. Or be a bona fide investigation.
       Mr. Heymann. That it would be a entirely--it would be 
     review of documents that would be entirely credible to us, to 
     the investigators and to the American public.
       Senator Shelby. OK. Your notes mention, I believe, Mr. 
     Heymann, that Steve Neuwirth objected to this agreement, but 
     that Mr. Nussbaum agreed with Margolis that it was a done 
     deal; is that correct? You want to refer----
       Mr. Heymann. That is what they reported to me when Mr. 
     Margolis and Mr. Adams returned that evening, the evening of 
     Wednesday the 21st, to the Justice Department.
       Senator Shelby. What do your notes reflect, I was 
     paraphrasing them?
       Mr. Heymann. It said they discussed the system that had 
     been agreed upon, I just described it to you. BN that stands 
     for Mr. Nussbaum, agreed. SN, that stands for Steve Neuwirth, 
     said no. We shouldn't do it that way. The Justice Department 
     attorneys shouldn't have direct access to the files. David 
     Margolis, the Justice Department attorney, said it's a 
     done deal and Mr. Nussbaum at that point said yes, we've 
     agreed to that.
       Senator Shelby. Was it important to you and to the 
     Department of Justice that you represented that the documents 
     be reviewed independently, is that why it was important that 
     the Department of Justice look for relevance and privilege 
     jointly in this undertaking?
       Mr. Heymann. Yes, Senator Shelby. Again, I did not think it 
     was necessary and do not think it was necessary to review 
     documents which we could quickly determine had no relevance 
     to Vince Foster's death. So our attorneys would not have 
     looked at those, that was a clear part of the understanding. 
     Or pages, yeah.
       Senator Shelby. I didn't say. I understand that you 
     received a call from David Margolis the next morning from the 
     White House about the search; is that correct? You want to 
     refer to your notes?
       Mr. Heymann. That's correct, Senator Shelby.
       Senator Shelby. What was this call about?
       Mr. Heymann. He and Roger Adams had gone over with the Park 
     Police and the FBI to do the review we planned.
       Senator Shelby. This was pursuant to the understanding you 
     had with Mr. Nussbaum?
       Mr. Heymann. Pursuant to the understanding of the 21st.
       Senator Shelby. Okay.
       Mr. Heymann. Mr. Margolis told me that Mr. Nussbaum had 
     said to me that they had changed the plan, that only the 
     White House counsel's office would see the actual documents. 
     Mr. Margolis had asked Mr. Nussbaum whether that had been 
     discussed with me and Mr. Nussbaum had said no. I told Mr. 
     Margolis at that point to put Mr. Nussbaum on the phone, and 
     I was----
       Senator Shelby. Did he get on the phone?
       Mr. Heymann. He got on the phone.
       Senator Shelby. What did you say to him?
       Mr. Heymann. I told him that this was a terrible mistake.
       Senator Shelby. Terrible mistake. Go ahead.
       Mr. Heymann. Well, please don't----
       Senator Shelby. That was your words; is that right?
       Mr. Heymann. Yeah--no, no, please don't assume that what I 
     now paraphrase would be the words I actually used. This is 
     740 days ago and it would be quite unreliable to think 
     they're the exact words. I remember very clearly sitting in 
     the Deputy Attorney General's conference room picking up the 
     phone in that very big room. I remember being very angry and 
     very adamant and saying this is a bad--this is a bad mistake, 
     this is not the right way to do it, and I don't think I'm 
     going to let Margolis and Adams stay there if you are going 
     to do it what way because they would have no useful function. 
     It would simply look like they were performing a useful 
     function, and I don't want that to happen.
       The Chairman. You told this to the counsel?
       Senator Shelby. You told this to Nussbaum; is that correct?
       Mr. Heymann. I told this to Mr. Nussbaum.
       The Chairman. But you volunteered this? In other words, it 
     did not come from Mr. Margolis or Mr. Adams? This was your 
     saying I'm not going to keep them here if this----
       Mr. Heymann. I suspect, Senator D'Amato, that when I talked 
     to Mr. Margolis in the same phone conversation shortly before 
     I asked him to put Mr. Nussbaum on the phone he would have 
     said to me something like we have no useful role here, and it 
     would--I would have picked it up from that, and I would have 
     said I don't think I'm going to keep them there. Mr. Nussbaum 
     was, as always, entirely polite and he said--he was taken 
     back by my anger and by the idea that I might pull out the 
     Justice Department attorneys and he said I'll have to talk to 
     somebody else about this or other people about this, and I'll 
     get back to you, Phil [meaning Phil Heymann].
       Senator Shelby. Did he tell you who he was going to talk 
     to?
       Mr. Heymann. He did not tell me who he was going to talk 
     to.
       Senator Shelby. He didn't tell you or indicate it was the 
     President of the United States or the First Lady?
       Mr. Heymann. He never indicated in any way who he was going 
     to discuss this with, nor has he ever.
       Senator Shelby. Just the phrase I'm going to talk to 
     somebody?
       Mr. Heymann. I'm--just the notion was I have to talk to 
     other people about this. I had obviously shaken him enough 
     that he wanted to consider whether he should come back to 
     what we had agreed to the day before on the 21st, but there 
     were other people involved that he had to talk to about that.
       Senator Shelby. Was it your impression, Mr. Heymann, then 
     that Mr. Nussbaum would get back to you before any review of 
     the documents in the White House was conducted?
       Mr. Heymann. He said to me specifically don't call Adams 
     and Margolis back to the Justice Department. I'll get back to 
     you.
       Senator Shelby. Did he ever call you back?
       Mr. Heymann. He never called me back.
       Senator Shelby. Did you ever consent to the change in the 
     plan in how the search would be conducted, Mr. Heymann?
       Mr. Heymann. I did not.

  Just think about it a minute. This is the beginning of it shown in 
this transcript that has been made a part of the Record here.
  Why should we extend the Whitewater Committee? Let us look at some 
other things. The Senator from Alaska talked about some editorials from 
some of the leading newspapers in the country and I want to expand on 
them a little bit.
  For example, the Washington Post editorial that I have here by my 
pointer, it says, on February 25, ``Extend the Whitewater Committee.''

       For an administration that professes to want a quick end to 
     the Senate Whitewater hearings before the election year gets 
     into full swing, the Clinton White House seems to be doing 
     everything in its power to keep the probe alive.

  Think about it, this is the Washington Post, not a Republican 
newspaper by any means.
  Another editorial that I want to refer to here from the New York 
Times entitled ``The Whitewater Paper Chase''; February 17, 1996.

       The excitement of Iowa and New Hampshire has diverted 
     attention from the Senate Whitewater committee and its 
     investigation into the Rose Law Firm's migrating files. 
     Naturally this pleases the White House and its allies, who 
     hope to use [this time] . . . to let their ``so what'' 
     arguments take root.

  This is the New York Times saying we should extend the investigation 
of Whitewater.
  Another editorial, January 25, 1996, in the New York Times. Headline 
in the editorial section, ``Extend the Whitewater Committee.'' Why? 
Because the public has a right to know. It says:

       The committee and its chairman need to be mindful of the 
     appearance of political maneuvering, but recent events argue 
     strongly against too arbitrary or too early a deadline.

  That is what we are talking about here.
  Subpoenas were ignored. Perhaps the files will also show that there 
was no coverup associated with moving and storing these files. But 
inanimate objects, as I said earlier, do not move themselves. So it is 
pointless to ask Senators and the independent prosecutors to fold their 
inquiry on the basis of the facts that have emerged so far. To do so 
would be a dereliction of our duties.
  Mr. President, I have additional editorials that have run throughout 
this country.
  USA Today, January 10, 1996, ``Clintons owe answers about First 
Lady's role. Newly released documents reveal troubling inconsistencies. 
The public deserves the whole story.'' That is what this is all about.
  Additionally, ``The Whitewater Committee,'' the Washington Times 
editorial, February 27.

       There are plenty of documents the White House still has not 
     released; and there are plenty of witnesses still to be 
     questioned; there are also many witnesses whose testimony was 
     so misleading or incomplete that they need to be re-
     questioned.

  Attempts by the administration to frustrate the work of the 
committee, I

[[Page S1585]]

think, are not going to work. We need to extend the Whitewater inquiry, 
politics notwithstanding. We need to move to the next step.
  Mr. President, you cannot always agree with some of these papers. I 
do not always agree with the New York Times, the Washington Post, and 
others. But the New York Times and the Washington Post for a lot of 
people, rightly or wrongly, are conventionally viewed as vanguards of 
good government, and I would venture to say can hardly be characterized 
as supporters of Republican partisanship.
  After reviewing everything that has gone on in the Whitewater 
committee, the mysterious disappearance of files, the finding of files 
in a mysterious way, Mr. President, I ask that my colleagues join me in 
supporting the continued funding of the committee to continue our 
investigation.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BRYAN. I am pleased to yield.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, in view of the fact that my 
distinguished colleague from Alabama was quoting the Washington Post 
editorial, I would like to include in the Record after his remarks the 
Post editorial from February--both of these editorials come after the 
one he was citing--February 29 in which the Post said the ``Senate 
should require the committee to complete its work and produce a final 
report by a fixed date.'' I underscore ``by a fixed date.'' And then it 
goes on to say, ``That would argue for permitting the probe to continue 
through April or early May.''
  And in their other editorial of March 4, they say, ``The Whitewater 
committee should be empowered to do just that''--that is factfinding--
``but within a reasonable time.'' And it goes on to say, ``Two 
additional months'' constitutes a reasonable time.
  I ask unanimous consent that both of these editorials, since they, in 
fact, make a different point than the one that was being made by my 
colleague from Alabama, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 29, 1996]

                        Extend, but With Limits

       We noted the other day that the White House--through its 
     tardiness in producing long-sought subpoenaed documents--has 
     helped Senate Banking Committee Chairman Alfonse D'Amato make 
     his case for extending the Whitewater investigation beyond 
     today's expiration date. If one didn't know any better, one 
     might conclude that the administration's Whitewater strategy 
     was being devised not by a White House response team but by 
     the high command of the Republican National Committee.
       However, despite the administration's many pratfalls since 
     Whitewater burst onstage, Sen. D'Amato and his Republican 
     colleagues have not provided compelling evidence to support 
     the entirely open-ended mandate they are seeking from the 
     Senate. There are loose ends to be tied up and other 
     witnesses to be heard, as Republican Sen. Christopher Bond 
     said the other day. But dragging the proceedings out well 
     into the presidential campaign advances the GOP's political 
     agenda; it doesn't necessarily serve the ends of justice or 
     the need to learn what made the Madison Guaranty Savings & 
     Loan of Arkansas go off the tracks at such enormous cost to 
     American taxpayers. The Senate should allow the committee to 
     complete the investigative phase of its inquiry, including a 
     complete examination of the Clintons' involvement with the 
     defunct Whitewater Development Corp. and their business 
     relationships with other Arkansas figures involved in 
     financial wrongdoing. But the Senate should require the 
     committee to complete its work and produce a final report by 
     a fixed date.
       Democrats want to keep the committee on a short leash by 
     extending hearings to April 3, with a final report to follow 
     by May 10. A limited extension makes sense, but an 
     unreasonably short deadline does not. Five weeks may not be 
     enough time for the committee to do a credible job. Instead, 
     the Senate should give the committee more running room but 
     aim for ending the entire proceedings before summer, when the 
     campaign season really heats up. That would argue for 
     permitting the probe to continue through April or early May.
       What the Senate does not need is a Democrat-led filibuster. 
     Having already gone bail for the Clinton White House, often 
     to an embarrassing degree. 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. 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 Sen. D'Amato and his committee 
     are taking. The burden is also on * * *
                                                                    ____


               [From the Washington Post, March 4, 1996]

                       Twenty Months and Counting

       That is the disdainful cry of Senate Democrats as they rise 
     in opposition to the request of Senate Republicans for an 
     open-ended extension of the now-expired Whitewater 
     investigation. After conducting more than 50 days of public 
     hearings involving 120 witnesses, taking 30,000 pages of 
     deposition testimony, collecting 45,000 pages of White House 
     documents, spending more than $1.3 million, and compiling a 
     casualty list of near financially destroyed administration 
     officials, what do Whitewater committee Chairman Alfonse 
     D'Amato and his Republican colleagues have to show for it? 
     the Democrats ask. A good question, indeed. But it's not the 
     only one to be answered in deciding whether to extend the 
     life of the committee.
       The committee has been working for more than a year to 
     gather the facts surrounding the collapse of the federally 
     insured Madison Savings and Loan in Little Rock, the 
     involvement of Bill and Hillary Clinton in the defunct 
     Whitewater Development Corp., and the handling of documents 
     and the conduct of White House officials and Clinton 
     associates in the aftermath of Deputy White House Counsel 
     Vincent Foster's suicide. Whitewater, in the hands of 
     congressional Republicans and the independent counsel, is now 
     a much wider-ranging investigation that seeks answers to a 
     host of questions concerning Washington-based actions taken 
     after the administration was in office.
       The committee, for example, has been having an exceedingly 
     tough time obtaining subpoenaed documents or unambiguous 
     testimony from administration officials. Seldom have so many 
     key witnesses had no earthly idea why they did what they did, 
     wrote what they wrote, or said what they said--if they owned 
     that they even remembered at all.
       Committee Republicans assert that dozens of witnesses still 
     must be examined. Some will not be available until their 
     trials ends. That's the major reason Sen. D'Amato gives for a 
     lengthy open-ended extension. The next has to do with the way 
     White House aides keep dribbling documents--suddenly and 
     miraculously discovered--to the committee. Just when we think 
     we've seen the last of the belated releases, one more turns 
     up. The latest was Friday night, when one of the president's 
     top aides, Bruce Lindsay, produced two pages of notes that he 
     had earlier told the Whitewater committee he didn't remember 
     taking. See what we mean?
       At issue today, as it has been for some time, is whether 
     the Clinton administration has done anything to impede 
     investigations by Congress or the independent counsel and 
     whether the Clintons engaged in any improper activities in 
     Arkansas while he was governor and she was a partner in the 
     Rose Law Firm. Nothing illegal on their part has turned up 
     yet. For those who are inclined to dismiss any and everything 
     that falls under the label of Whitewater as just another 
     political witch hunt, it is worth remembering that 16 people 
     have been indicted by federal grand juries as a result of the 
     independent counsel's probe and nine have entered guilty 
     pleas. Congress doesn't have the job of sending people to 
     jail. But fact-finding is part of the congressional job 
     description. The Whitewater committee should be empowered to 
     do just that, but within a reasonable time. Two additional 
     months, with a right to show cause for more time, makes 
     sense.

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I take no backseat to any Member in this 
Chamber in terms of trying to ascertain and ferret out the truth as it 
relates to the so-called matter which has been embraced--the subject of 
Whitewater.
  We have today spent some 277 days on this matter. We have heard from 
more than 100 witnesses. We have collected more than 45,000 pages of 
documents. That is an enormous expenditure of time and effort. Mr. 
Starr, the special counsel, has spent some $25 million to date to 
engage 30 attorneys and 100 FBI agents working in concert with them.
  If we are truly interested in getting at the truth, and ascertaining 
if in fact there is any wrongdoing arising out of these matters, I 
believe that we have vested Mr. Starr with the authority and the 
resources to be complete and exhaustive in his review of all facts 
called to his attention.
  I happen to have had experience with Mr. Starr in a former capacity 
as chairman of the Ethics Committee. Mr. Starr served as a special 
master reviewing matters that were contained in a diary and to first 
review that information to determine whether or not it was subject to 
an agreed upon exception which the committee had established and, if 
not, that information should be available to us.
  My personal observation of Mr. Starr is that he is competent, he is 
aggressive, he is tough, and he is energetic. There is no reason to 
believe that Mr. Starr, with the resources made available to him, will 
not ferret out any

[[Page S1586]]

wrongdoing if in fact such wrongdoing has occurred.
  I think it is important to remember that the premise for establishing 
the Office of Special Counsel was to take these kinds of circumstances 
out of the realm of partisanship on the floor of the U.S. Senate, vest 
special independent counsel with the authority to conduct the 
investigation, and then let the chips fall where they may. If indeed 
there is evidence of wrongdoing, that should be vigorously presented 
and prosecuted, and those who are guilty should be sentenced 
accordingly.
  I must say, having served on this Banking Committee for my 8th year, 
that it has been the history of the Banking Committee to be bipartisan 
in its approach. There are some committees that by reputation in the 
Congress are extraordinarily confrontational and partisan, that there 
is constant bickering, and that they really have evolved into partisan 
debating societies. That has not been the history of the Banking 
Committee. Sure, we have had our differences, and there have been 
intense discussions and debate. But we have not, by and large, broken 
into partisan bickering and confrontation.
  Let me say that if you go back to the end of last year, Mr. Starr 
requested of the committee that it hold action in abeyance until after 
he could have proceeded further with respect to his investigation and 
prosecution of these matters. That letter came to us, a letter dated 
September 27. That was carefully considered by our distinguished 
chairman and our able ranking member, and I believe in the spirit of 
bipartisanship which has historically characterized the operation and 
function of the Banking Committee that the chairman and the ranking 
member concluded that they would not do so; that, indeed, they felt 
that it was in the best interest of the Senate to proceed.
  I invite my colleagues' attention to a particular paragraph on page 
2, which concludes, and I read it:

       For these reasons we believe that the concerns expressed in 
     your letter do not outweigh the Senate's strong interest in 
     concluding its investigation and public hearings into the 
     matters specified in Senate Resolution 120.

  So at the very outset last fall, there was a delinking, if you will, 
in terms of the Senate's actions with respect to the Whitewater inquiry 
and the actions undertaken by the special counsel, or prosecutor. That 
was done in a spirit of bipartisanship.
  Let me say that I believe the premise of that letter, which is dated 
October 2--I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record--that 
premise is as valid today as it was last October.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         U.S. Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
           Affairs,
                                  Washington, DC, October 2, 1995.
     Kenneth W. Starr, Esq.,
     Independent Counsel, Office of the Independent Counsel, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Judge Starr: We have reviewed your September 27, 1995 
     letter advising us of your belief that, at this time, your 
     office's investigation would be hindered or impeded by the 
     Special Committee's inquiry into the matters specified in 
     Sections 1(b)(3) (A), (B), (C), (D), (E) and (G) of Senate 
     Resolution 120 (104th Congress). You have raised no specific 
     concerns respecting the Special Committee's investigation of 
     the other seven matters specified in the Resolution, 
     including all of those contained in Section 1(b)(2), although 
     in our meeting on September 19, 1995 you did indicate 
     concerns about the Committee's investigation of the substance 
     of the RTC's criminal referrals relating to Madison Guaranty 
     Savings and Loan Association.
       The Senate has consistently sought to coordinate its 
     investigation of Whitewater and related matters with the 
     Office of the Independent Counsel. Last year, in Senate 
     Resolution 229 (103rd Congress), the Senate refrained from 
     authorizing the Banking Committee to investigate a great 
     majority of such matters. Moreover, at the request of then-
     Special Counsel Robert Fiske, the Banking Committee postponed 
     in July 1994 its authorized investigation of the handling of 
     documents in the office of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent 
     Foster following his death.
       Senate Resolution 120 encourages the Special Committee, to 
     the extent practicable, to coordinate its activities with the 
     investigation of the Independent Counsel. As a result, over 
     the past four months, the Special Committee has delayed its 
     investigation into the vast bulk of the matter specified in 
     Section 1(b) of Senate Resolution 120. We held public 
     hearings this past summer into the handling of documents in 
     Mr. Foster's office following his death only after you 
     indicated that your investigation would not be hindered or 
     impeded by such hearings.
       The Senate has directed the Special Committee to make every 
     reasonable effort to complete its investigation and public 
     hearings by February 1, 1996. (S.R. 120 Sec. 9(a)(a)(1)). 
     Your letter of September 27th asks the Special Committee to 
     forebear, until some unspecified time, any investigation and 
     public hearings into the bulk of the matters specified in 
     Senate Resolution 120.
       Your staff has indicated that the trial in United States v. 
     James B. McDougal, et al. is not likely to commence until at 
     least early 1996 and is expected to last at least two months. 
     Our staffs have discussed the possibility that this trial 
     could be delayed even further by pretrial motions and by 
     possible interlocutory appeals, depending on certain pretrial 
     rulings. Under these circumstances, if the Special Committee 
     were to continue to defer its investigation and hearings, it 
     would not be able to complete its task until well into 1996.
       Over the past month, we have instructed the Special 
     Committee's counsel to work diligently with your staff to 
     find a solution that appropriately balances the prosecutorial 
     concerns expressed in your September 27th letter and the 
     Senate's constitutional oversight responsibilities. We have 
     now determined that the Special Committee should not delay 
     its investigation of the remaining matters specified in 
     Senate Resolution 120.
       The Senate has determined, by a vote of 96-to-3, that a 
     full investigation of the matters raised in Senate Resolution 
     120 should be conducted. The Senate has the well established 
     power under our Constitution to inquire into and to publicize 
     the actions of agencies of the Government, including the 
     Department of Justice. At the same time, our inquiry must 
     seek to vindicate, as promptly as practicable, the 
     reputations of any persons who have been unfairly accused of 
     improper conduct with regard to Whitewater and related 
     matters.
       We understand that courts have repeatedly rejected claims 
     that the publicity resulting from congressional hearings 
     prejudiced criminal defendants. Fair and impartial juries 
     were selected in the Watergate and Iran-Contra trials 
     following widely publicized congressional hearings. Even 
     where pretrial publicity resulting from congressional 
     hearings has been found to interfere with the selection of a 
     fair and impartial jury, the sole remedy applied by courts 
     has been to grant a continuance of the trial.
       For these reasons, we believe that the concerns expressed 
     in your letter do not outweigh the Senate's strong interest 
     in concluding its investigation and public hearings into the 
     matters specified in Senate Resolution 120 consistent with 
     Section 9 of the Resolution. Accordingly, we have determined 
     that the Special Committee will begin its next round of 
     public hearings in late October 1995. This round of hearings 
     will focus primarily on the matters specified in Section 
     1(b)(2) of Senate Resolution 120. Through the remainder of 
     this year, the Special Committee will investigate the 
     remaining matters specified in Senate Resolution 120 with the 
     intention of holding public hearings thereon beginning in 
     January 1996.
       Having determined that the Senate must now move forward, 
     the Special Committee will, of course, continue to make every 
     effort to coordinate, where practicable, its activities with 
     those of your investigation. The Special Committee has 
     provided your staff with the preliminary list of witnesses 
     that the Committee intends to depose. We stand ready to take 
     into account, consistent with the objectives set forth above, 
     your views with regard to the timing of such private 
     depositions and the public testimony of particular witnesses.
       The Special Committee does not intend to seek the testimony 
     of any defendant in a pending action brought by your office, 
     nor will it seek to expand upon any of the grants of immunity 
     provided to persons by your office or its predecessors. 
     Indeed, Senate Resolution 120 expressly provides that the 
     Special Committee may not immunize a witness if the 
     Independent Counsel informs the Committee in writing that 
     immunizing the witness would interfere with the Independent 
     Counsel's ability ``successfully to prosecute criminal 
     violations.'' (Sec. 5(b)(6).)
       As you know, the Special Committee has solicited the views 
     of your office prior to making requests for documents. We 
     will continue to take into account, where practicable, your 
     views with regard to the public disclosure of particular 
     documents.
       In sum, it is our considered judgment that the time has 
     come for the Senate to commence its investigation and public 
     hearings into the remaining matters of inquiry specified in 
     Senate Resolution 120. We pledge to do so in a manner that, 
     to the greatest extent practicable, is sensitive to the 
     concerns expressed in your September 27th letter.
           Sincerely yours,
     Paul S. Sarbanes,
       Ranking Member.
     Alfonse M. D'Amato,
       Chairman.

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am not unmindful, nor is anybody in this 
Chamber, nor anyone in America, that we are in the heat of a great 
Presidential debate. That is as it should be. That is a quadrennial 
experience in America. But we ought not to allow that Presidential 
debate to divert the

[[Page S1587]]

focus of our own energies on the Banking Committee and on every other 
committee in the Congress in which we have very serious public business 
to undertake.
  I must say that the proposal that has been advanced--that we extend 
these hearings in the Senate not to a time certain but until after the 
so-called McDougal trial is concluded--in my judgment is nothing more 
than an open-ended extension which I regret to say smacks of 
partisanship seeking some advantage, seeking to embarrass the 
President, seeking to develop headlines, and not in the advancement of 
our effort to ascertain the truth--that is going to occur through the 
aggressive investigation of Mr. Starr--but to seek some political gain 
at the President's expense.
  First of all, we do not know when that trial might be concluded. This 
is a trial of extraordinary complexity. At a bare minimum, it would 
take several months for this trial to be concluded. Moreover, it is not 
without precedent in cases like this that there could be further 
unanticipated delays in which this body, the Senate of the United 
States, would have no ability to control or influence, nor should we.
  So we have no idea when this matter will be concluded based upon the 
uncertainties that a very complicated trial, as this has every 
expectation of being, would conclude.
  Let us assume for the sake of argument that, indeed, a conviction 
were secured against all of the defendants. I do not believe that 
anybody in this Chamber would challenge the proposition that there will 
be an appeal taken during the course of the aftermath of that 
conviction or convictions. As a result, those defendants would 
certainly not be available to the Senate committee because it is clear 
in every circuit in the country that the privilege which exists with 
respect to each of those defendants is not waived, nor is it 
extinguished in any form because it is entirely possible that an 
appellate court could reverse those convictions, in which case, if 
there was a subsequent trial, the defendants ought not to be 
disadvantaged by being compelled to disclose testimony which 
subsequently could be used against them. So that is very clear.
  Let us assume for the sake of argument that the trial concludes and 
the defendants are found innocent. Does that extinguish the privilege? 
Would that constitute some kind of a waiver? Look at the experience 
that the McDougals themselves had. They were prosecuted and 
subsequently acquitted. They are now subject to trial once again. They 
argued that they were precluded under the double jeopardy provisions of 
the Constitution from being tried again, and they lost in that 
argument.
  No one is arguing that the jurisdiction of the special prosecutor and 
the jurisdiction of the Senate Whitewater Committee is concurrent in 
all respects. So very clearly as a result of those circumstances the 
defendants, if they were acquitted, would not have lost their right to 
assert the privilege, and their testimony would not necessarily be 
available to this committee.
  Although it has a superficial appeal--well, let us wait until after 
the trial and then we will hear from the various defendants--in point 
of fact, that is clever but simply an open-ended prospect in which 
there may be no definitive conclusion by reason of the two alternatives 
I posit here--either a conviction, in which case they are certainly not 
going to be forthcoming in their testimony, or in the event of an 
acquittal by reason of the prior experience they have had there could 
be some other ancillary prosecution that could be commenced.
  So I think that the premise upon which this extension is sought is 
fundamentally flawed--that is, namely, this testimony would be 
available to us at such time as the trial would be concluded, whenever 
that might be, for whatever period of time, which could be for an 
extended period of weeks or even months, or, even assuming it is 
concluded either by reason of a determination of guilt or acquittal, 
that in either of those two circumstances the testimony might be 
available to us.

  I respectfully submit that a careful analysis of the information 
would indicate that in neither of those two events is it reasonable to 
assume that that evidence would be made available to us, and that in 
each of those cases it is very likely the defendants would continue to 
assert their privilege and the committee would not have the ability to 
receive their testimony.
  I began my comments by saying that I am as committed as any Member in 
this Chamber to getting at the facts. If there is evidence of 
misconduct, it should be brought to public attention. Indeed, the 
trials which are occurring right now will be public trials and that 
information, if there is such evidence, will come out. The American 
people will fully understand.
  I have indicated that I think Mr. Starr is a competent and an 
aggressive, energized prosecutor. There is every reason to believe he 
will follow any leads, any evidence that may suggest wrongdoing, and he 
will be aggressive in doing so.
  I believe an argument could be made that the Whitewater matter has 
gone on long enough in the Senate and it ought to be concluded at this 
point. But I believe the compromise that has been offered by the 
ranking member, namely, that we extend the hearings for a period of 5 
weeks, and then allowing another 4 weeks thereafter to compile the 
report, is reasonable. In that period of time we ought to be able to 
conclude this matter, unless there is a different agenda here. And I 
think the American people need to understand that. I believe--and I 
hate to say this, but I think it is true--there is a different agenda. 
It is not an agenda to find out exactly what happened and to get to the 
bottom of this. It is to keep this issue alive, to generate a headline, 
to generate ongoing controversy with the hope that somehow this may 
spill over into the Presidential race this year and disable the 
President politically.
  What has been proposed is a very reasonable compromise, and I think 
any fairminded person who has looked at the 277 days, the 100 
witnesses, the 45,000 pages of documents we have examined would 
conclude that another 5 weeks is a reasonable period of time. And so I 
commend the distinguish Senator from Maryland. That is a reasonable 
approach. I say to the American people that in 5 weeks, done 
energetically, not just one hearing for 1 hour, 1 day each week, but I 
mean an aggressive hearing schedule that would engage the members of 
the committee for a 4- or 5-day workweek, we can reasonably examine any 
evidence or tie up any loose ends that might have existed. But that 
offer was rejected. That offer was rejected.
  What we are faced with is a proposition that in effect has no time 
limit, no constraint at all. After the trial, whenever that might be, 
whatever week, whatever month, who knows, whatever year, we do not know 
what might occur. Those of my colleagues who have done trial work know 
that oftentimes in the course of a major piece of litigation--and this 
is certainly a major case--unexpected events occur and, indeed, the 
trial is recessed for a considerable period of time--weeks, even 
months.
  And so I would urge my colleagues to enable us to reach a responsible 
compromise that has been suggested by the distinguished ranking member, 
the senior Senator from Maryland, and let us go on with this. There are 
so many other things I would like to do in this year in the Banking 
Committee. Some are interested in regulation reform with respect to the 
banking industry. I would like to work on some of those provisions.
  I would like to see us complete our work here on the floor, the Fair 
Credit Reporting Act, which was something that I personally invested a 
good many years on. But the reality is that the entire agenda of the 
Banking Committee, the legitimate public policymaking part of that 
agenda, has been held captive or hostage to the political machinations 
with an attempt to prolong a hearing on Whitewater, not for the purpose 
of getting at the truth, but for the purpose of trying to embarrass the 
President.
  I regret that I have to say that on the floor, Mr. President, but in 
my view the evidence lends itself to no other conclusion.
  I will conclude as I began by pointing out that last October, what 
may very well be the high-water mark in terms of the bipartisan 
approach which I hoped would characterize the entire

[[Page S1588]]

Whitewater inquiry in the Senate, in which it was affirmatively stated 
that these matters needed to be concluded, that we should not hold our 
hearings in abeyance until the trial and those ancillary proceedings 
are concluded, but that we had a compelling public interest to address 
this issue and to address it thoroughly but to address it promptly and 
responsibly. That, I fear, Mr. President, we are not doing.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of reasons why the 
Whitewater Special Committee should get on with its work and be 
limited. But this evening I am going to take a different approach that 
I think my colleagues ought to consider that has nothing to do with the 
facts of the investigation.
  That may seem strange, but I have been chairman of the Rules 
Committee with a strong responsibility; I am now ranking member of the 
Rules Committee with a strong responsibility. So, Mr. President, I feel 
that it is incumbent upon me to let my colleagues know what the actual 
costs are and what the prospects of getting the money might be.
  Mr. President, under title II of the United States Code, it gives the 
Committee on Rules and Administration the exclusive authority--I 
underscore ``exclusive authority''--to approve payments made from the 
contingency fund of the Senate. No payment may be made from the 
contingency fund without the approval of the committee. I think that is 
pretty clear.
  Inherent in that authority is the responsibility to assure that there 
are adequate funds--adequate funds--in the contingency fund to cover 
the various expenses of the Senate. This is just one. We are affecting 
every committee chairman in the Senate. I will get to that in a minute.
  Senate Resolution 227 before us today authorizes funds to be paid 
from the inquiries and investigation account within the contingency 
fund of the Senate. During the meeting of the committee on this 
resolution, I raised the concern that there may be insufficient funds 
within this account to support an open-ended extension of the 
Whitewater Special Committee at an additional amount of $600,000.
  Similarly, the full Senate should consider whether there is adequate 
funds in this account to provide for the extension. Not to consider 
this issue, in my opinion, Mr. President, would be irresponsible.
  First, let me advise my colleagues that the actual cost of extending 
the special committee is considerably more than $600,000. Senate 
Resolution 227 authorizes--and I quote--``additional sums as may be 
necessary for agency contributions related to the compensation of 
employees of the Special Committee.''

  The original resolution, Senate Resolution 120, was silent on how 
agency contributions were to be paid, but was amended, Mr. President, 
to provide retroactively that additional sums may be provided to pay 
these expenses. So, really the original amount is now well over $1 
million. The $900,000, $950,000 is well over $1 million. We will get to 
that in a minute.
  Any agency contributions include such expenses as the employer's 
share of health insurance, life insurance, retirement, FICA tax, and 
the employer match for the FERS thrift savings plan. For standing 
committees, the rule of thumb for figuring agency contributions is 
about 26 percent of payroll.
  It is my understanding that the percent incurred by the special 
committee might be slightly more than that. But let us consider the 26 
percent. So, Mr. President, based on 26 percent of payroll expense, the 
additional cost to the taxpayer and expense to the contingent fund of 
the extension of the Whitewater Special Committee could be upward of 
$150,000 more than the $600,000 that is being requested, bringing the 
actual total to over some $750,000.
  I should also point out to my colleagues that the same is true of the 
$950,000 authorized under Senate Resolution 120. The retroactive 
amendment to Senate Resolution 120, which provided additional funds to 
pay for agency contributions, could cost upward of $247,000. So we have 
a $950,000 figure. Then we have to add $247,000 to that. That comes out 
of the contingency fund. That could bring the initial cost of the 
special committee, as we add it up, to be well over $1 million to date.
  So, Mr. President, in reviewing the financial state of the inquiries 
and investigations account, I am advised there is an estimated $2.3 
million unobligated in this account for this fiscal year. I am 
concerned that this is not a sufficient balance to allow the Senate to 
authorize another $600,000 or more in expenses for continuation of the 
Whitewater Special Committee and have sufficient resources to meet 
other obligations of the Senate.
  Overtime is coming, whether you like it or not. We voted for that. 
Offices are already paying overtime. If you have been listening to the 
Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant-at-Arms, they are very 
concerned about overtime. We think that will be a minimum of 4 percent 
for committees. That is over $2 million.
  If you take Whitewater out of that contingency fund, you add on the 
other expenses that are necessary, you have a fund that is short, that 
is absolutely short. We will not have money. You jeopardize every 
committee in the U.S. Senate.
  Let me advise my colleagues as to the expenses that are paid out of 
this account. These expenses include all salaries and expenses of the 
19 standing committees, special and select committees, including the 
allowance for a COLA, if authorized, and the employer's share of all 
committee staff benefits. I go back and repeat, that means FICA, life 
insurance, health insurance, retirement, and the match for 
contributions to the FERS thrift savings plan.
  In addition, all salaries and expenses of the Ethics Committee are 
paid from this account. Also, the initial $950,000 for the special 
committee, plus agency contributions, were paid from this account.
  As my colleagues are well aware, we are now subject to the overtime 
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Just last week--and I 
repeat myself here--we heard from both the Secretary of the Senate and 
the Sergeant-at-Arms that they anticipate a substantial amount of 
overtime costs.
  The Rules Committee has heard from committee chairmen and ranking 
members who are facing the potential of substantial amounts of overtime 
costs without any funds budgeted to pay these costs.
  If the Senate should find it necessary to authorize additional funds 
to pay overtime expenses of committees, these expenses would be paid 
from the inquiries and investigations account of the contingency fund.
  While we have no history of overtime costs for Senate committees, it 
is clear that we will incur overtime costs before the end of this 
fiscal year.
  Based upon the current projected surplus in this account, if we 
should fund the extension of the special committee at the recommended 
level, we would have only about a 3-percent-of-payroll cushion for 
paying overtime expenses.
  This may be dry, and you may not be interested in what I am saying, 
but when you run out of money and your staff cannot be paid, you go 
back and remember what I said on this particular date.
  We simply cannot authorize an additional $600,000 in expenses from 
the contingency fund at this time. Doing so means nothing less than 
choosing between funding our obligations to our committee staff and 
hiring more consultants and issuing more subpoenas for more documents 
that have proven no wrongdoing at all.
  Let me be very clear. My colleagues may be choosing between paying 
COLA's, overtime expenses and the employer's share of health insurance, 
life insurance, retirement, and other items for our staff, or the 
consultant fees for an open-ended fishing license.
  Moreover, while an amount is theoretically budgeted for the expense 
of the Ethics Committee, that committee has unlimited budget authority, 
which is funded out of this account. While the Ethics Committee funding 
needs vary from year to year, investigations in the recent past have 
required substantial expenditures for hiring outside counsel. Again, my 
colleagues need to be aware that there are numerous important and 
unforeseen expenses that must be paid from the contingency fund.

[[Page S1589]]

  Mr. President, during the Rules Committee consideration of Senate 
Resolution 270, I offered two amendments which we believe provided 
sufficient time and funding to complete the business of the special 
committee without jeopardizing benefits to committee employees. The 
first amendment would have both reduced the additional funding for the 
Whitewater Special Committee and limited the ability to obligate 
expenses to be paid from the contingency fund after May 10, 1996.
  This amendment would have reduced the funding for the special 
committee from $600,000 to $185,000, with a corresponding reduction in 
the amount which can be used for consultants under this resolution from 
$475,000 down to $147,000.
  It would also have prohibited obligated expenses from the contingency 
fund after May 10, 1996, and based upon prior experience, it is clear 
that the additional witnesses and hearings the special committee wishes 
to call could be accommodated within that amount. However, with 
virtually no debate, that amendment was defeated on a party-line vote 9 
to 7.
  The second amendment that was offered would have reduced the 
additional funding for expenses and salaries of the special committee 
without the sunset date. This amendment would also have reduced 
authorization from $600,000 to $185,000, with a corresponding reduction 
in the amount available for consultants from $475,000 to $147,000.

  So with this resolution, if adopted, we would go out and get private 
consultants and pay them $475,000, almost half a million dollars of 
taxpayers' money to come in and help us gin up some more subpoenas, for 
all the telephone calls for the total State of Arkansas.
  This amendment would have allowed the special committee to complete 
its work without jeopardizing the funding of the other 19 Senate 
committee budgets and the benefits of the employees who work for those 
committees. Again, that amendment was defeated on a party-line vote.
  We are going to be here after Whitewater. The committees are going to 
be functioning after Whitewater. Staff is going to have to be paid on 
all the committees after Whitewater. But I tell you, when you dilute 
this fund--and we are going to have to have a line item, I say to the 
ranking member, for the new procedures of the Senate, and it is going 
to be a humongous amount of money. Some of it may start this year, and 
we will not have the amount of money necessary to complete.
  Let me be clear that we are not suggesting the special committee not 
be allowed to finish its work. I am only urging that we be responsible 
with the American taxpayers' money and be responsible to our staff by 
limiting both the life and the additional funding of the special 
committee to an amount that will not jeopardize the quality or, more 
important, the obligations of the Senate contingency fund.
  The American people will best be served if we reach a reasonable 
compromise for the extension of the special committee.
  So I urge the leadership on both sides of the aisle to make an effort 
to try to arrive at a compromise that will give us an opportunity to be 
sure that the contingency fund is not diluted.
  Mr. President, I just reiterate that we authorized $950,000 for 
Senate Resolution 120 and over $220,000 in addition to that which we 
had to pay. That is this unobligated--the little quotes that we get at 
the end of the bill. This one will be well up there, too, and well over 
the $600,000 that the chairman of the committee is asking for.
  What I have done here is to alert my colleagues to the possibility of 
jeopardizing the contingency fund, the possibility of jeopardizing our 
ability to take care of the other 19 committees to pay what the 
Sergeant at Arms and the Secretary of the Senate have said they are 
very concerned about--overtime.
  Overtime is tough, and it is going to get tougher. When we have 
approximately 3 percent left in the contingency fund, then I think we 
are on the verge of depleting that contingency fund.
  So I hope my colleagues will look at that; that they will see that it 
will take more money from the committees than is absolutely necessary; 
that this committee can wind it up by May 10; that we cannot dilute the 
contingency fund. I am very concerned, not for myself, not for the 
Senators, but I certainly am concerned for those who work for us on our 
committees every day and put in a good job, work hard and long, and 
they are entitled to have the overtime, because we now made it law.
  So, therefore, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, last week, my colleagues on the 
Democratic side objected to us taking up this very same resolution by 
way of unanimous consent essentially to empower the committee, to 
authorize the committee to do its job, to finish the work that it has 
started.
  Make no mistake about this: This is not an argument about funds; this 
is not an argument about a deadline. This really comes down to the 
crucial question of whether or not we are going to do our job and to 
fulfill the constitutional responsibilities and to get the facts. By 
the way, it may not be pleasant. Those facts may be very distressing or 
disturbing to some. Let me suggest that they may be disturbing because 
some may suspect that all kinds of misdeeds may have been committed by 
people in the administration or close to the administration, by friends 
of the administration, and suspect the possibility of attempting to 
impede investigations. But, indeed, there may be findings that there 
were no misdeeds--none. Some people may be upset by that. There may be 
findings that indeed there was improper conduct and activities.

  Regardless of which way it is, whether it is to clear away the clouds 
of suspicion, or whether the ultimate findings are that there was 
serious misconduct on the part of people in the administration, we have 
a duty to get the facts. If those facts are exculpatory, if they clear 
away the doubts, then fine, let the chips fall where they may.
  To oppose the proper work of this committee, which is authorized, 
pursuant to almost unanimous consent--96 to 3--to undertake this 
investigation, is to say very clearly that there may be facts that may 
not be exculpatory, they may be damaging. Now, look, it is easy to 
suggest that this committee has conducted its work in what one would 
call an unfair partisan manner. I say, let us look at the record. Yes, 
we have had suggestions and, yes, there have been subpoenas initially 
drafted, but not served, that may have been overly broad. That is not 
unusual. You negotiate to determine what the scope should be. Al Smith, 
the Governor of New York State, coined an expression. He used to say, 
when there were controversies, ``Let us look at the record.'' If one 
were to look at the record, you would ultimately find, notwithstanding 
that there may have been negotiations between the Democrats and 
Republicans, that ultimately, in almost all cases, over the life of 
this committee and its predecessor, agreement has been reached. On only 
one occasion--out of the dozens of subpoenas that were issued and 
requests for witnesses' testimony--did we really have one disagreement 
that could not be solved in a bipartisan manner.
  To come forth at this time and suggest that this is politically 
inspired is at variance with the record. Al Smith said, ``Let us look 
at the record.'' That record indicates, quite clearly, that 
notwithstanding the times that we may have had differences, we were 
able to surmount them in a way that brought clarity and dignity to our 
work. We may not have found what some would characterize as the smoking 
gun. But, indeed, ours is not to anticipate what will or will not be 
found. The work of this committee is to gather the facts, my friends, 
not to prejudge, not to offer speculation, not to suggest that, well, 
what do you do then if you unearth some terrible, horrible chilling 
thing. Ours is to gather the facts. If those facts clear away the 
clouds of doubt that may exist, fine. But I suggest to you that there 
was sufficient room, at least, to say there are some very real 
concerns--repeated memory lapses, tied to factual situations; diaries 
that people kept notes in, which mysteriously turn up after the work of 
this committee could have come to an end; missing records that turn up. 
Contradictory testimony of Secret Service Officer O'Neill and young Mr. 
Castleton, two people who

[[Page S1590]]

have no reason to make up stories, cast very real doubts and concerns 
as to the manner in which key documents that were removed from Mr. 
Foster's office were handled. Who requested the movement of those 
documents? What were those documents? Officer O'Neill says that he saw 
the first lady's chief of staff, Maggie Williams, removing files. It 
was very clear in his testimony. Very clear. As a matter of fact, it is 
so clear that I think most people, if they have heard his account, 
would believe it. And I can assure my friends and colleagues on the 
other side that I will go over that narrative very carefully if they 
continue to oppose us going forward and orchestrate what is a 
filibuster.
  I do not think it behooves the interest of the committee, the Senate, 
Democrats or Republicans, or the entire political process, given the 
grave doubts that people have with respect to Washington, that we fail 
in our duties and obligations to continue to do our work in an 
expeditious a manner as reasonable, dealing with the circumstances that 
we have, recognizing that there are key witnesses that are unavailable.
  Mr. President, those witnesses may never be available. I am the first 
to suggest that. They may never be available. But at least we will have 
done the best we can do. If we file a report based upon all of the 
work, our best efforts, then we can say that we have discharged our 
responsibility. The American people have a right to know, and we have 
an obligation to get the facts.
  Some people say, ``Why do you continue with this? People are bored.'' 
It is not our job to be concerned with whether or not people are bored. 
The question is not whether there are sensational headlines that will 
come out of revelations. The question is: What are the facts? Were 
there misdeeds, an abuse of power, an attempt to cover up? Was there an 
attempt to stop investigations from taking place? And then going to the 
heart of the issue, was there misuse of taxpayers' moneys in Little 
Rock? That is the question. If there was, who was responsible? As a 
result, was there a concerted effort to keep these facts from being 
revealed to the American people?
  I am sorry that this matter has been drawn out as it has. 
Notwithstanding those who would claim that this was deliberate, that is 
not the case. Nor would I differ with my friends if they were to say 
that there were dates that we could have held more hearings. Certainly, 
but that would not have permitted us to complete the work of this 
committee. It absolutely would not have. Indeed, it would have left a 
situation where there were still numbers of documents that we have no 
reason to believe would have been produced any earlier, and numbers of 
witnesses, including Judge Hale, who I believe the committee wants to 
at least make a good-faith effort to bring before the committee. And 
again--and I know it is difficult--I think we want to attempt to be as 
fair and reasonable in our presentations of our cases as we possibly 
can be. I do not know the truth or falsity of what Judge Hale is 
reported to have said. I do not know whether he can shed any light on 
any factual material. It certainly is important enough to make the 
effort. If, indeed, at the conclusion of the trial when we subpoena 
him--together, hopefully, and I have every reason to believe that my 
Democratic colleagues will join in that because that has been the 
indication of the ranking member--his lawyers may assert and raise the 
constitutional questions about self-incrimination. That may take place.

  Then we could say, ``Well, Senator, why did you do this?'' I admit we 
have no assurance that any of these witnesses that we want will be 
forthcoming. But, by gosh, we have an obligation to do the job, 
thoroughly, correctly, and in the right way. All the arguments about 
money, and how much has been spent, is a red herring. There is no truth 
to that. This committee has been rather frugal. Indeed, if you want to 
look at the costs, hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent 
correctly in gathering the evidence, taking depositions--these 
transcripts cost thousands of dollars a day. That is part of the cost. 
This has not been a wasteful exercise that costs $30 million. I hear 
people say, ``Why are you wasting money--$30 million?"
  Let me say again, the committee's work has been extended. It has been 
extended because the special counsel has asked us as it relates to key 
times and dates to withhold from the subpoenaing of information, to 
withhold from the subpoenaing witnesses. We have worked with them. I 
think that is responsible. Did I want to get those witnesses in? Yes, 
absolutely. There is a degree of responsibility that this committee 
must exercise. It does not mean that we cede to the special counsel all 
authority and say, ``When you raise an objection, we shall not go 
forward,'' but in good conscience we have attempted to act in a way 
that would not jeopardize the important work of the special counsel.
  Mr. President, I think that if the minority continues to thwart, as 
it can, if it votes against cloture--and there will be a cloture vote 
scheduled--then I think they are very clearly saying to the American 
people that they are afraid of the facts that will be revealed. There 
is no doubt in my mind this is a carefully orchestrated opposition 
being raised, and that orchestration comes from the White House.
  Indeed, packets of information have been distributed to denigrate 
individual Members. That is not what a White House should be about. 
That is not what this investigation should be about--people assigned 
tasks, responsibilities of gathering information on a Senator from the 
DNC. That is not right. That is not fair. This Senator has known about 
that for quite a while. I bring it up now for the first time because, 
Mr. President, if we want democracy to work, then we have to stop these 
dirty little games, the dirty tricks of attempting to embarrass, 
attempting to hurt so that one is diverted, one's attention is diverted 
from the facts.
  Now, Mr. President, I believe that we could come to a resolution. I 
have not spelled out any particular methodology. It seems to me that we 
know with a good degree of certainty that the trial will be concluded. 
There may be appeals. So what? That will not preclude us from asking 
for witnesses to come in. Indeed, their lawyers may or may not assert 
constitutional rights. At least at that point we have given to the 
special counsel the opportunity to do his work. He may disagree. The 
committee may say, ``Look, we want to resolve this and go forward.''
  On the other hand, the committee may say, reasonably, we should not. 
At that point, I would be first to say we may have to conclude, or 
certainly there is no further reason to continue going forward if there 
are not other areas that have not been successfully covered.
  It would seem to me we would be in a position to look into the 
question of the leases that have been made with respect to Mr. McDougal 
and the State. We would be able to look into the Arkansas Development 
Finance Authority, the propriety of its acts, the relationships that it 
had or did not have with various people, the probity of those--all of 
those areas that are left unresolved. I am not going to take the time 
at this point to go into them, but I will. And I will spell them out in 
detail as we will spell out the testimony of Mrs. Williams, Maggie 
Williams, in detail and the testimony of young Mr. Castleton and the 
testimony of the officer, which is clearly at variance with what her 
memory and what her reflections are to such a degree that one has to 
say that there are very real issues that are not resolved. I will do 
that.
  Mr. President, I think we have an opportunity to do the business of 
the people, not to create these doubts--what are my Democratic friends 
worried about? What is the White House worried about? What are they 
hiding? If there is nothing there, then, fine, the committee will fold 
its tent, as it should. It will conclude. But it has an obligation to 
first have the real opportunity to conclude its work as we should, as 
honest factfinders. That is what this is about, being honest 
factfinders. Nothing more, nothing less.
  I hope that we would not engage in the kind of accusations that 
oftentimes come about where there are contentious matters, matters of 
conscience. There may be some of my colleagues who absolutely feel that 
the only reason we are going forward is to seek to discredit 
politically. There may be

[[Page S1591]]

some on my side who seek partisan advantage for that purpose. But 
irrespective of those feelings, we have an obligation. The obligation 
is to get the facts and to try to do it in a manner that really 
demonstrates to the American people that notwithstanding contentious 
issues--issues that could very easily be blown out of proportion by 
partisanship--that we are above it.
  Now, I am not suggesting to you that reasonable people may not have 
reason to disagree with some of my decisions or actions on that 
committee. But I believe if one were to examine his or her conscience, 
they would have to say that the chairman has endeavored to be fair. 
Yes, fair; yes, thorough; yes, comprehensive; but, above all, fair. 
That does not mean we have to agree on every issue.
  It seems to me that one way which is not recommended, a recommended 
course, is to continue our work and look at the conclusion of the trial 
as a point in which we would look to set some kind of reasonable time, 
and that we would agree if there was work that still needed to be done, 
that we would take up whether or not it should be extended. I do not 
see how you can set a limit based upon a date certain--what if the 
trial does go 2 months, and we say we have to wrap up the work of the 
committee by April 5. That means that those key witnesses would be 
precluded.
  That means that we set a timeline. It has been suggested, and I know 
referenced by some of my colleagues in the debate, that when you set a 
deadline for the completion of congressional investigations, decisions 
are often dictated by political circumstances and the need to avoid the 
appearance of partisanship. This is what was done in the Iran-Contra 
case. They set a particular timeline. What that did is set a convenient 
drop-dead date by which lawyers sought to delay and wait out the 
investigation.
  My distinguished colleagues, the former Democratic majority leader 
and Senator Cohen, suggested that should not have been done. Here is a 
quote: ``The committee's deadline provided a convenient stratagem for 
those who were determined not to cooperate.'' That is in this book, 
``Men of Zeal.'' I have to suggest that, given the appearance of 
documents at the last minute--and I am not going to argue the merits--
but I have to suggest there has been a history of documents coming in 
conveniently late. The last of them was the miraculous production of 
the Bruce Lindsey documents. Mr. Lindsey, the assistant to President 
Clinton, his close confidant and friend, testified before the 
committee, that he did not take notes--he did not remember taking 
notes. He was asked specifically about it. His lawyer was requested to 
look and see and to make a proper search. He did undertake this so-
called review and this search, and lo and behold, after the committee's 
funding ended, guess what? On a Friday, the miraculous production. 
Always on a Friday. Always late on a Friday. This time I think it was 
about 7 or 8 o'clock Friday.
  Why? To avoid the news, avoid the news. The White House got these 
documents, I understand, on a Wednesday. But they did not make them 
available to the committee until Friday. What is that all about? 
Managing the flow of information. That is managing the flow of facts. 
Is that right? Is that proper? I will tell you what it appears like to 
me. It appears to me that my Democratic friends are so interested in 
the management of the facts, facts that may be embarrassing, that they 
are willing to scuttle our constitutional obligations. That is just 
wrong and that is what leads people to say: What are you hiding? What 
are you hiding?
  Do I believe that all my colleagues are in league with that? No, I do 
not. But I believe that there are those who are so intent upon stopping 
this investigation that they have laid down a hard and fast rule. They 
are probably polling right now to ascertain whether or not this is 
going to hurt their credibility or not.
  I think whenever you want to end a duly constituted investigation 
when there are substantial open questions and work to do, people have 
to say: Why? Why are you keeping the committee from doing its work? I 
think we can do our work. I think we can do it again in a reasonably 
fast way, but in a way that meets our obligations.
  I do not look to draw this out. I said to this committee, to the 
Rules Committee, when we sought authorization, it was my hope that we 
could keep this matter from continuing into the political season. I 
still think we can deal with this in a manner which means that it would 
end sometime in June, late June or maybe even earlier. I think we 
really can.
  But there has to be a starting point that is reasonable and will 
assure that we have some opportunity to get the facts. If we never get 
the opportunity to examine the witnesses--and that is what would take 
place if we had an arbitrary deadline of April and that trial is not 
over--we will be denied this opportunity. I recognize they can take 
appeals. They could take appeals for years. I am not suggesting we wait 
until the appellate process is over. That is not the case at all.
  Mr. President, I am going to ask that my colleagues on the Democratic 
side consider an attempt to deal with this in a way that will not put 
us to the test of coming to vote to end this filibuster. They should 
not be filibustering this. We have other things to do. We have 
important things to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Domenici). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to stand and commend the 
distinguished Senator from New York. The Rules Committee, of which I am 
a member, proceeded to meet yesterday, in a very correct manner, hoping 
to consider S. Res. 227, I believe, reported it to the floor, and that 
is the subject of the pending business.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the chairman and his staff for their cooperation 
in conducting that hearing with expedition. The matter is now before 
the Senate.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I listened to Senator D'Amato, the 
chairman of the Whitewater Committee, with great interest. I want to 
say that the unreasonable element in this current situation is a 
request for an indefinite extension of the work of the committee. That 
was not the premise on which the committee was established in Senate 
Resolution 120. In fact, it is very clear that in Senate Resolution 120 
we agreed to a termination date just as we did in the Iran-Contra 
investigation at the strong urging of Senator Dole who at that time was 
the minority leader and who pressed the Democratic majority at that 
time in the Senate and the House to have a closing date on the inquiry 
in order to avoid making it a political exercise in a Presidential 
election year in 1988.
  That is exactly what we sought to do here by having a termination 
date of February 29, 1996, and the request that has been made is for an 
indefinite extension.
  The minority leader, Senator Daschle, has responded to that by 
proposing a limited time period. But the proposal before us that was 
brought first from the Banking Committee, and then by the Rules 
Committee, on a straight partisan vote is for an indefinite time period 
in order to carry out this inquiry. And, as I have indicated, this is 
perceived as unreasonable.
  I know of no plot, as my colleague suggested, to denigrate Senators. 
Certainly no one on this side of the aisle is involved in any such 
endeavor. I want to establish that in a very clear fashion.
  Two things have been argued. One is we have not gotten all of the 
material in, and, therefore, we need to extend. Of course, Senator 
Daschle proposed a period of time for extension. I just observe that 
the material is all now in. We got these notes. We had hearings on 
these notes. I have to take the explanations as they come.
  The Lindsey notes constitute three pages. This is what came. That is 
the extent of it. These notes, in fact, corroborate what has previously 
been available to the committee.
  Let me just read the note that comes from their counsel. It says:

       Following a recent Senate committee hearing in which 
     questions were raised as to whether a January 10, 1994 
     memorandum from Harold Ickes was copied to other White House 
     officials and whether they had produced their copies of such 
     documents in response to the committee's request, Mr. Lindsey 
     and this firm undertook a review of all our prior document 
     productions.

  And I think it is important to point out that there have been very 
extensive prior document productions.


[[Page S1592]]


       With respect to the January 10th memorandum, we found that 
     an identical copy of the document produced to the committee 
     by Mr. Ickes was in Mr. Lindsey's White House files and had 
     been produced by Mr. Lindsey to the White House Counsel's 
     office January 1995 for review with regard to executive 
     privilege and other issues. In the course of this review, we 
     have identified two other documents in our files which 
     inadvertently were not produced to you, or the White House 
     Counsel's Office, earlier and which are attached.

  Those are these three pages of notes. And he then goes on to say:

       First, while Mr. Lindsey previously informed your committee 
     that he did not recall taking any notes as of November 5, 
     1993 with Mr. David Kendall and other counsel for 
     the President, our recent review has located some very 
     brief handwritten notes set forth as attachment A here, to 
     which Mr. Lindsey did write at that meeting but did not 
     previously recall. As you will see, these brief notes are 
     completely consistent with the testimony of Mr. Lindsey 
     and others, and the Kennedy notes of the same meeting 
     presented to your committee about that meeting.

  You may want to go at one or another of these people for not 
producing the documents early but the fact is the document had been 
produced--the Gearan document. Then we had a full day of hearing on 
those documents. And the same thing, of course, is true with respect to 
the Ickes notes.
  So those matters have been furnished to the committee. And, as I 
understand it, now every request made by the committee to the White 
House has been responded to with the exception of two new requests for 
e-mail that the chairman made in the latter part of February that have 
not yet been responded to.
  Those two e-mail requests are pending, and the White House has 
indicated that it will provide them to the committee as soon as it is 
able to prepare them and furnish them to the committee.
  Mr. D'AMATO. If the Senator will yield for an observation.
  Mr. SARBANES. Sure.
  Mr. D'AMATO. This is the first time that I have seen the letter 
conveying the notes. I guess we got these last Friday. They did not 
really come into our possession until Saturday.
  That would be a week ago Saturday?
  Yes, last Saturday. Last Saturday. So when we got these notes, I 
think you have to understand very clearly that Mr. Lindsey testified to 
the committee that he did not take notes. Then there is another 
encounter----
  Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield, they state that in the 
letter. They are not trying to conceal that fact.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Sure. I understand.
  Mr. SARBANES. They are very up front about saying ``previously 
informed your committee that he did not recall taking any notes.''
  Mr. D'AMATO. Sure.
  Mr. SARBANES. And he now says they have found these brief handwritten 
notes.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I understand. And then we made a request after that 
testimony and his lawyer said that he was going to look, to search the 
records. And we did not get anything. And now, on March 2, after the 
committee goes out of its authority--I do not know whether we have 
authority, but certainly authorization expired February 29--this letter 
is sent to us enclosing the notes he had taken.
  I find the letter interesting; this is the first time I have seen the 
letter, and I would ask my friend if he would take a look at the second 
page of the letter, the last paragraph, last sentence. ``We have not 
produced, of course, attorney-client privileged documents reflecting 
either Mr. Lindsey's communications with this firm.'' I understand 
that. In other words, he should not have to report his communications 
that he has had with his lawyer. Those are privileged. He has a right 
to assert that. But this is where I have some real trouble, and I think 
the committee will, and it is a very proper question. We will look and 
we will press and we will subpoena, if necessary, these documents, 
whatever they may be, because obviously his lawyer thought they were 
important enough that they would not place him in a position where he 
might be charged with obstructing justice or not responding to the 
subpoena. He has very smart lawyers. He is a lawyer himself, a former 
senior partner in a law firm. ``Or his''--meaning Mr. Lindsey's--
``attorney-client privileged communications with private counsel for 
the President.''
  I have to suggest he does not have a privilege with respect those 
conversations that he had and cannot assert that with respect to those 
conversations and those documents, and we have been in touch with him 
about this. We have gone to the point that we brought down to the 
Senate floor and voted on--this is the one area that we could not agree 
on--whether or not documents were privileged. That same kind of 
question about whether they would be required to waive privilege came, 
and we were ready to vote enforcement of the subpoenas that we issued. 
That was the only time that we had a disagreement.
  I have to say to my friend, again, this raises very substantial 
questions. Now, reasonable people might disagree, but I have to suggest 
to you that was not just placed in there as some legal nicety. That is 
important. And I have to say, what information does he have?
  We have settled the manner in which to deal with many of these 
issues. We have had majority counsel and minority counsel meet to see 
whether or not information should be made public, whether the committee 
had a right to it or not. At the very least, we have a right to see 
whether or not this falls within that area of information that is not 
germane to the subject of our inquiry--at the very least.
  Now, if people want to raise, if the White House wants to raise the 
issue of privilege, which the President of the United States said he 
would not--he would not--why, then, that is their right. But for Mr. 
Lindsey's attorney to withhold and say, ``We are not going to do it,'' 
that is improper.
  Now, if the White House wants to come in and say, ``We are asserting 
that Mr. Lindsey had communications with the President's private 
counsel that are privileged,'' then they have a right to do that. I am 
not agreeing that we are going to say that falls within the parameters 
of the privilege. We may insist on enforcement. But I have to tell you 
that this again raises questions. And when do we get this information? 
Saturday.
  How is it that we have got so many of these convenient kinds of 
lapses? And this is not the first time. Mr. Lindsey is an assistant to 
the President of the United States. He has the lapse. The deputy chief 
of staff, Mr. Ickes, he has a lapse. He finds documents, again, at the 
last minute. Mr. Gearan, he has a lapse. Again, every one of these 
people involved with the Whitewater team has a lapse. I have to suggest 
to you that it does raise real questions and is very troubling.
  That is why I think there are many people who believe that we have an 
obligation to finish this and to get the facts, and I think that if we 
were to move forward you would see even more documents be produced, 
more discoveries, more things that have not been turned over to this 
committee. I cannot believe given the tasks--and I am prepared to go 
through the list--that Mr. Ickes assigned to various people that all of 
the documents related to their Whitewater activities have been turned 
over to this committee.
  I yield the floor to my friend because the Senator has been more than 
gracious. I just wanted to raise this matter.
  Mr. SARBANES. All I would say to the Senator is that these documents 
have been furnished to the committee. They have not been concealed from 
the committee, and they have not been hidden.
  Now, the people who furnished them said, ``We were late furnishing 
them for the following reasons.'' Now, you may accept or reject those 
reasons. And if you want to inquire into the reasons, you are perfectly 
free to do so. But the fact remains that the committee has these 
documents. They are now in hand.
  I have been sitting here listening today to my colleagues recite 
various aspects of our inquiry. The fact is the matters they have been 
reciting they can recite because we have gotten documents, we have had 
hearings, we have had witnesses that we have been able to question, we 
have taken depositions, and therefore they can get up and talk about 
these matters--often I think drawing conclusions not warranted by the 
facts, but leave that to one side--they can talk about these matters 
because this material has been furnished

[[Page S1593]]

to the committee. So the fact is now that there has been a tremendous 
dragnet set out for material and a tremendous amount of material 
furnished back to the committee, the fact is when we set out on this 
endeavor last May it was agreed that we would draw it to a conclusion 
at the end of February.
  That has been a consistent principle that has been applied to all 
inquiries and all investigations by the Senate. None of them has been 
open ended. In 1987, when Democrats pushed for an open-ended hearing, 
Senator Dole was very strong in saying that should not be done, and the 
Democrats actually acceded to his representations and a concluding date 
was set--in fact, quite an early one--and in order to accommodate it, 
the Iran-Contra committee held 21 days of hearings in the last 23 days 
of its working period in order to get the job done.
  Now, as the chairman knows, we urged him in mid January to have an 
intensified hearing schedule in respect to this matter. We now find 
ourselves here at the beginning of March. I think that the minority 
leader has been very forthcoming in proposing an extension of time 
until the April 3 in order to complete our hearings. And, in any event, 
I do not regard it as a reasonable proposition to ask for an indefinite 
time period which is completely contrary to the premise on which we set 
out. It is completely contrary to the premise of Iran-Contra, and it is 
completely contrary to the premise of every other inquiry and 
investigation.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I do not know if my friend is finished, and without 
losing the right to the floor, I would like to make an observation if 
he would care to comment.
  Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, the fact is that this letter--by the way, 
not so clearly, not so clearly--is what I consider to be a brilliant 
legal, scholastic exercise in extricating one's client from meeting the 
obligations that he would be required to meet pursuant to the subpoena 
that asked him to produce all relevant documents with respect to 
Whitewater. Brilliant. This is absolutely terrific.

  And this fellow, Allen B. Snyder, is one good lawyer. He is the 
lawyer who signed this letter. Let me tell you why. Analyze this; you 
have to agree, this is good. This is good. Listen to this, Mr. 
President. ``We have not produced''--this is the last sentence in this 
letter that says, here we give you these things, how we found them--
``We have not produced, of course,''--gets you into believing, of 
course--``attorney-client privilege documents reflecting either Mr. 
Lindsey's communication with this firm''--oh, OK, all right, we are not 
going to ask about that.
  You are talking to your lawyer and saying, by the way, I have a 
problem, et cetera, whatever. We have some facts or are talking 
strategy, et cetera. That is what we consider to be privileged. By the 
way, it would seem that constitutional authorities would indicate in 
some cases that we would actually have the right to that documentation.
  So, ``* * * of course, attorney-client privilege documents reflecting 
either Mr. Lindsey's communications with this firm or--get this; now we 
search very carefully--``or his attorney-client privileged 
communication with private counsel for the President.''
  He is withholding documents. We do not have those documents. We have 
not seen those documents. And he is now asserting for the first time 
that he has information. He did not know he had it before. He just 
remembered it. He just found it. He did not know it. But he now says, 
``I've got documents that you have subpoenaed. But I'm not going to 
give them to you because, guess what, I had conversations with or 
communications with the President's counsel.'' Let me tell you 
something, as an assistant to the President, if he has communications 
and shares documents with a private counsel for the President, they are 
not privileged. And this Senate and the Congress has a right to know 
what that information is.
  Look, it may be that we are arguing over nothing. We have agreed to a 
methodology, a methodology of not attempting to provoke a court 
confrontation. I will tell you, I will ask for enforcement of the 
subpoena because this subpoena was served before the authorization of 
committee funds ran out. This response is carefully contrived, and the 
documents are produced after the committee goes out.
  Is it any wonder why reasonable people say, ``Why are you doing this? 
Why are you holding this?'' Is there any reason why newspapers say, 
``How come you keep dribbling this thing out? What are you trying to 
hide?''
  At the very least, it all seems to me that the majority counsel and 
the minority counsel have done this before. We can look at this 
information, see if it is relevant or not, and examine whether or not a 
claim of privilege is valid. I cannot see how it can be asserted, but 
if it is not relevant, we will not ask for it. We will agree to take a 
pass.
  I do not want to know whether he was discussing whether a football 
team or basketball team was going to win the game the night that they 
went to see it, or if he was in the company of the President, that he 
discussed that kind of thing. But if it is relevant, we have a right to 
it. If he communicated to the President's counsel, ``By the way, I'm 
worried about X, Y and Z,'' we have a right to that.
  Either we want the facts or we do not. Do we want to hide the facts? 
Let me say, as it relates to the proposition that we are not willing to 
set a time certain, I think that is bad. I think it is really bad. But 
I am willing to say, let us provide a period of time after the 
conclusion of the trial. We know, whether that trial concludes with a 
final verdict--guilty, innocent, hung, et cetera--that within 10 weeks 
after that trial, we will conclude.
  You have to start someplace. I do not like setting a time because I 
think again when you set a time line, you set a prescription for people 
looking to delay and get past that time line. That is what our friends 
in ``Men of Zeal'' said. And they were right. Again, this was authored 
by Senator Cohen and Senator Mitchell about Iran-Contra. They said, 
``The committee's deadline provided a convenient stratagem for those 
who were determined not to cooperate.''
  I suggest, given the manner in which these documents came forward, 
that this is part of the stratagem. When I see this letter, we know 
conclusively that we have not had an opportunity to examine documents 
that were subpoenaed.
  This is a very brilliant, lawyerly, scholarly letter. I read it for 
the first time, and it just jumped out at me. Then counsel told me they 
have attempted to get some kind of an agreement from Mr. Lindsey's 
counsel in order to inspect this material. They were told no.
  So where is the cooperation? If the White House has nothing to hide, 
where is that cooperation? It's a needle in a haystack. We want the 
facts and information--the needles--but we get the whole haystack, we 
do not get the critical information.
  This is just another example. Let me suggest to you, is it not great 
cooperation when lawyers tell their clients, ``What are you holding 
back?'' and ``You better not hold back''? I see a pattern here. I see 
some very bright lawyers saying, ``You can't withhold this stuff. You 
have memorandums all over this place. If someone comes over and says, 
`Where is that memorandum?' and you sent it to eight different people, 
where do you think we get these documents from?''
  Some very capable lawyers would tell a client, ``I'm not going to be 
part of advising you to withhold.'' Perhaps, that is why we have been 
getting documents from them. Of course, that is an assumption on my 
part. There are a number of suspicious instances. We could take Susan 
Thomases and the repeated requests to her for records--two times, three 
times, four times before we get all of the information, before we get 
the logs that show the communications, key communications, information 
withheld from us. I think there are some very capable lawyers that she 
has representing her saying, ``Wait a minute. Wait a minute. They have 
asked you about these things. You can't withhold these things.''
  You really think that a very capable lawyer like Ms. Thomases would 
not have looked at the diaries and logs as it relates to communications 
that she had during critical periods of time on or about the day of the 
suicide, or the

[[Page S1594]]

day following the suicide, of Vince Foster? She would have missed these 
during that week? And it took us months to obtain this vital 
information.
  We have not been able to examine her. She broke her leg. We examined 
her twice. She was scheduled to come in a third time. Unfortunately, we 
could not do that because she said she broke her leg. What were we 
supposed to do? Drag her in there? Have her come in a wheelchair?
  I recognize the discomfort level that my friends and colleagues on 
the other side would have as it relates to an indefinite extension. I 
understand that. But as a practical matter, if we receive $600,000, and 
spend it at the rate of approximately $150,000 a month, Mr. President, 
we are talking about 4 months. That is the practical side of this.
  We could be doing that business without rancor, doing it to the best 
of our ability. We may not be able to complete all of the work as we 
would like. If there were facts and information that clearly 
demonstrated that we had to go forward, I am sure that my colleagues 
would then say, maybe reluctantly, we have to do that. That is the 
position we would be placed in.
  You know, the editorials indicate that we should go forward. They 
also say that there is a caveat, a clear caveat, as it relates to the 
work of the committee, if we begin to appear to be unfair, if we appear 
to be partisan in terms of being demanding, and that we, those of us 
who are pressing to finish our work, could feel the political fallout. 
But there are what we call common sense, common decency, in handling 
the inquiry in a manner that is proper. I think we can do that. I would 
like to proceed in that manner.
  I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity, at least, to 
share these thoughts with you. I hope that between now and tomorrow, 
when we come to the floor again, that I have put forth something in a 
manner in a way in which we could possibly move forward.
  I suggested some way to begin to resolve this, such as taking a 
period of time after the completion of the trial. I said 10 weeks. My 
friend may feel that is too long, but let us see if we cannot do it. 
Again, there is a finite amount of time, constrained by very limited 
resources, resources of $600,000.
  There has been an endeavor by my friends to put forth a proposal for 
5 weeks starting now and $185,000. I think we have to say even if that 
is the most good-faith offer they can make--and I do not question the 
fact that my colleague advances that in good faith--I hope that my 
friend, Senator Sarbanes, will understand that it will not deal with 
the question of access to those witnesses.
  Again, we may never have access to them. I admit that. I am not 
trying to score debating points here. What I am trying to do is tell 
you clearly where we are troubled, what some of those facts are and see 
if we cannot work out a way cooperatively to go forward.
  Mr. SARBANES. Let me say to the chairman, let me make a couple of 
points. First of all, they cite editorials that say do an indefinite 
extension. I have cited on the floor today editorials that say--let me 
just quote a couple of them.

       . . . Whitewater hearing needs to wind down. A legitimate 
     probe is becoming a partisan sledgehammer.
       . . . The Senate Whitewater hearings, led since last July 
     by Senator Al D'Amato, have served their purpose. It's time 
     to wrap this thing up before the election season.

  That is the Greensboro, NC, paper.
  The Sacramento Bee says:

       With every passing day, the hearings have looked more like 
     a fishing expedition in the Dead Sea.

  And says these ought not to be extended.
  Mr. D'AMATO. That is at least an imaginative image, fishing in the 
Dead Sea. I like that.
  Mr. SARBANES. It is very imaginative, in my opinion. This is a 
growing body of editorial view about the nature of these hearings.
  When we agreed to these hearings on a 96 to 3 vote last May, an 
essential premise was that they would come to a conclusion. In fact, 
when the chairman went before the Rules Committee, he made the point 
that he wanted to keep it a year, so it would not extend into the 
election season.
  It was very clear that we were not going to defer to Starr and his 
trial. We were going to carry out our hearings, just the way Iran-
Contra carried out their hearings, and Walsh kept going after they 
concluded their hearings. Iran-Contra did not come in behind the 
trials. They carried out their hearings and brought them to a close, 
and, in fact, we stated that to Starr very clearly back on October 2 
when we joined and wrote him a letter and said:

       For these reasons, we believe the concerns expressed in 
     your letter do not outweigh the Senate's strong interest in 
     concluding its investigation and public hearings into the 
     matter specified in Senate Resolution 120 consistent with 
     section 9 of the resolution.

  And section 9 was the February 29 date. So we were very clear about 
that, as far back as October.
  By seeking an indefinite extension, there is a complete change in the 
ground rules by which the special committee has been operating 
heretofore. And I say to the chairman, that is part of the basis for 
the very strong opposition that we have to an indefinite extension of 
this inquiry. It has not been done before.
  I commend to you Senator Dole's very strong comments in 1987 on this 
very issue in which he was very explicit, repeatedly, with respect to 
this question, and actually to accommodate, the Democratic Congress 
agreed that we would not extend the inquiry into the election year, 
thereby politicizing the matter and, I think, increasing the public 
perception that what is going on is simply a political exercise.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Again, I have not heard any response, but I have 
indicated that, obviously, the committee would be very hard pressed to 
continue its work past 4 months. That is No. 1. At $150,000 a month, in 
some cases even more, and particularly if we are going to attempt to 
conclude this and take the necessary depositions, et cetera, that is 
about the time frame that we are talking about.
  It is reasonable to assume we are going to talk about a trial that 
lasts anywhere in the area of 6 to 8 weeks. I suggested we take a time 
line from the conclusion of that trial and attempt to use that as the 
date.
  So I have given an opportunity to our Democratic colleagues and 
friends to consider this, instead of just being placed in a position of 
those of us who would come to the conclusion, rightfully or wrongfully, 
that there may be people who are calling and orchestrating this from 
the White House who just do not want those facts to come out, whatever 
they may be.
  I do not know what they will be. I tell you, if they are exculpatory, 
if they clear the record, if they clear the clouds away, fine, so be 
it.
  While Senator Dole has indicated previously the need and necessity to 
keep investigations and hearings from going into the political season--
and I recognize that and I have addressed that--there is the experience 
that our colleagues and the former majority leader had during that same 
period of time. In his book, ``Men of Zeal,'' it was said that to set a 
time line is basically to encourage people to look at delay.
  We can continue this back and forth, but I hope my colleague will 
consider what I suggested as a way to attempt to resolve this without 
us becoming involved in other matters.
  Let me say this to you. Tomorrow I will advance, if we do not get an 
extension and if my colleagues continue to vote against cloture--and I 
have no reason to believe my Democratic colleagues will not come in 
here and, to a man, vote against proceeding and we will continue this 
filibuster--then we will go through the record very clearly and attempt 
to make the case why it is we are seeking to continue, what facts we 
are still seeking, what information, what witnesses, in detail. They 
can still vote that particular way. But then there will come a point in 
which we will attempt to do the work of the committee. It may not be as 
neat, it may not be as tidy, but I can assure my friend and colleague 
that we will persist. I think when I say we are going to undertake 
something and I am committed to seeing to it that we do the best job we 
can, that is something we can count on.
  I put forth an offer that I think I can get substantial support for. 
There will be some of my colleagues, as I am sure there will be a 
number of yours, who are adamantly opposed to any kind of compromise. I 
recognize that, and I

[[Page S1595]]

recognize, in all due sincerity, that my friend probably has a number 
of colleagues who just do not want to agree to even 5 weeks. I 
recognize that, too.
  Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield on that point, there are many 
people who feel the committee should have done its work within the 
requirements of Senate Resolution 120, just as Iran-Contra had to do 
its work within its allotted requirements under the resolution under 
which it was operating.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I really tried as hard as possible to attempt to put 
forth an offer----
  Mr. SARBANES. No, I just want you to understand there are some 
strongly held views of that sort.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Sure, and you must recognize that there are legitimately 
held views that people themselves feel strongly about without any 
partisan motives being attached to their feeling; that they say we want 
to end that. I understand that, and I am saying to you that I have a 
number of Members who do not want to compromise as it relates even to a 
time line and they suggest we are going to be back in the same problem 
again. But there comes a point in time when you have to make the best 
of the situation.
  I am suggesting possibly we explore looking at a time certain, from 
which we say we will conclude, that being the conclusion of the trial, 
one way or the other, if it is a hung jury, whatever it might be. We 
may not be able to get any of those witnesses.
  Mr. SARBANES. That is right, and we need to examine that up front.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I am first to admit that. I am first to admit that. What 
I am trying to do is to say there is a good faith offer, an attempt to 
wind this up in a manner that does not detract from everything and 
everybody because there are going to be those who say in the drumbeat 
of the political spin doctors on one side saying the Senator from New 
York is attempting to keep this going for political reasons.
  Mr. SARBANES. That is right.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I understand that. On the other side, there will be the 
chorus, What are you hiding? For every editorial you can produce, I can 
produce one, two, three, four and you can produce some, and back and 
forth. What does that achieve? My gosh, what have we advanced?
  So I am--and I am not asking you for an answer now--I am asking you 
to consider attempting to deal with this impasse, so that we do not 
have to come down here and have our colleagues vote, line up on one 
side, those vote to cut off debate, cut off the filibuster, and those 
who take the opposite possible positions and all the various 
characterizations that are going to flow--from both sides, absolutely 
totally well-meant. All right. So I hope I have covered the waterfront 
on that.

  It may be that we cannot find a way to resolve this. But I am 
suggesting that I am certainly willing to spare us further debate here, 
further time here, and let us be able to do the best we can, given that 
we cannot control all the circumstances in this investigation. Some of 
it is beyond our ability to control.
  I yield the floor, and I thank my friend for his courtesies in giving 
me the opportunity at various times to make some points that I thought 
were important.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I believe, without imposing upon my 
colleague, that concludes our discussion with respect to going forward 
on the Whitewater resolution.
  Mr. SARBANES. Yes.

                          ____________________