[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 33 (Tuesday, March 12, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1808-S1810]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WHITEWATER DEVELOPMENT CORP. AND RELATED MATTERS--MOTION TO PROCEED
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under rule XXII, the clerk will now report the
motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to Senate Resolution
227.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Senate Resolution 227, regarding the Whitewater
extension:
Alfonse D'Amato, Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, Phil Gramm,
Judd Gregg, Dirk Kempthorne, Strom Thurmond, Jim
Jeffords, Olympia Snowe, Bob Smith, Dan Coats, Larry E.
Craig, John Ashcroft, Thad Cochran, Jon Kyl, R. F.
Bennett.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate
that debate be brought to a close? The yeas and nays were ordered under
rule XXII.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 26 Leg.]
YEAS--53
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--47
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53 and the nays are
47. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might be
permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today we have seen what is the first of
probably a number of votes to attempt to curtail the filibuster against
moving forward with the Whitewater investigation.
Let us be clear and set the record straight. I have offered publicly,
and I offer again on the Senate floor, an opportunity to answer the
question of whether or not the committee is looking to continue the
investigation into the political season and to do so by incorporating
an indefinite time agreement. I can state, we are willing to limit--not
that I am happy about it--since the setting of arbitrary time limits,
as stated by the former Democratic majority leader, Senator Mitchell,
is a mistake. Senator Mitchell came to this conclusion to prevent the
possibility of lawyers from stalling and keeping matters from coming
forth. However, recognizing that we are in a unique situation, this
Senator has indicated before and I indicate publicly now that we would
be willing to terminate the committee's work, even if it is not
finished, within 4 months. It will take us, I believe, at least that
period of time since there is a trial which is taking place right now
in Little Rock, AR. There are witnesses who are unavailable to us who
are testifying there. I believe that their presence, at least the
opportunity to attempt to bring them forward, is important.
Mr. President, let me quote something. Let me read it to you.
[[Page S1809]]
No arguments about politics on either side can outweigh the
fact that the White House has yet to reveal the full facts
about the land venture, the Clintons' relationship with Mr.
McDougal's banking activities, Hillary Rodham Clinton's work
as a lawyer on Whitewater matters, and the mysterious
movements of documents between the Rose Law Firm, various
basements and closets, and the Executive Mansion. The
committee, politics notwithstanding, has earned an indefinite
extension. A Democratic filibuster against it would be silly
stonewalling.
That is what we have seen today. Every single Democrat came in here
and voted to stonewall at the direction of the White House.
Let us not make any mistakes about who is calling the shots here. It
is the White House. Now, that is not a statement in terms of the
stonewalling or being silly. That is a quote from the New York Times--
the New York Times. They are certainly not an organ or a mouthpiece of
the Republican Party.
Let me quote today's Washington Post--today's Washington Post:
Lawmakers and the public have a legitimate interest in
getting answers to the many questions that prompted the
investigation in the first place and those that have been
raised in the course of it by the conduct of many
administration witnesses . . . If Democrats think that
stalling or stonewalling will make Whitewater go away, they
are badly mistaken. The probe is not over, whether they try
to call it off or not.
Now, that is the Washington Post today, certainly not a mouthpiece of
the Republican Party.
Let me read to you from the current issue of Time magazine, just a
small part.
The question of whether specific laws were broken should
not obscure the broader issue that makes Whitewater an
important story. How Bill and Hillary Clinton handled what
was their single largest investment says much about their
character and integrity. It shows how they reacted to power,
both in their quest for it and their wielding of it. It shows
their willingness to hold themselves to the same standards
everyone else must--whether in meeting a bank's conditions
for a loan, taking responsibility for their savings,
investments and taxes, or cooperating with Federal
regulators. Perhaps most important, it shows whether they
have spoken the truth on a subject of legitimate concern to
the American people.
That was written by James Stewart, a Pulitzer Prize winning
journalist. Mr. Stewart has just written a major book, ``Blood Sport,''
about the Clintons' investment in Whitewater.
I come right back to the final question: What are my friends afraid
of? What is the White House afraid of? Why are they reluctant to allow
the committee to conclude its work? What are they hiding from the
American people?
I believe that the American people have a right to these answers. No
amount of criticism as it relates to what the committee has done to
date will obfuscate the fact that they are continuing to stonewall. It
is not silly. It is incorrigible. It is wrong. And it does not bring
credit to this institution or to either political party or to the
process.
Once again, I lay forth the opportunity to settle this so that we do
not have to have speeches and debates and say that we can conclude the
committee's work in 4 months.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority manager of the bill is
recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have sought
recognition to outline a second-degree amendment which will be
offered----
Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield at this point? Can we get 5 minutes
to respond, on this matter that has been raised for the purpose of
debate, for the ranking minority member, appropriate to give him a
chance to respond to Senator D'Amato?
Mr. SPECTER. I would yield for that purpose on a unanimous-consent
request that when the response is concluded I be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I am going to be very brief.
It would be expected that the assertions would be made that have just
been made. The fact is that Senator Daschle offered a perfectly
reasonable proposal with respect to this inquiry dealing with
Whitewater, and that was to provide an extension into early April. The
inquiry was supposed to end at the end of February. That was provided
for in the resolution which the Senate passed. The reason that was done
was in order to keep this inquiry out of the election year so it would
not be subject to a public perception that it was being carried on for
political reasons.
Now, that concern paralleled a concern that was expressed by the
Republican leader, Senator Dole, in 1987, when the Iran-Contra inquiry
was undertaken. That was in a Congress controlled by Democrats. It was
an inquiry into the activities of a Republican administration. There
were Democrats who wanted to carry it on indefinitely through the
election year. Senator Dole, at that time the minority leader, was very
insistent that it would have a fixed timeframe that would keep it out
of the election period. The Democratic Senate responded to that and, in
effect, agreed that the inquiry would be brought to an end in the
latter part--in fact, in the fall--of 1987, and later we moved that
date up in order to keep it even more out of the election year.
Now, Senate Resolution 120 provides that the two leaders should get
together and discuss any proposal for extending the committee, and I
think that ought to be done.
The proposal before us is for an indefinite time period. The proposal
which my colleague from New York has just put forward, the 4-month
proposal, is virtually the equivalent of an indefinite time period. I
think there needs to be some reasonableness here, and I think the
reasonableness was reflected in the proposal put forward by Senator
Daschle, the minority leader, which would have provided that the
committee could continue its work into early April and have a month
after that in order to do its report.
Now newspapers across the country are beginning to editorialize about
this matter. These are newspapers ``outside of the beltway'' raising
questions. For instance, the Tulsa paper says:
How far must taxpayers go? How much must they pay to keep
this charade going? The vote in the Senate to extend the
investigation probably will be along party lines. If it does,
the extra $650,000 should come from the coffers of the
Republican party, not from the taxpayers. It is the
Republicans, not the taxpayers, who stand to benefit. The
Whitewater probe is shaping up to be the longest, most costly
fishing trip in American history.
These are not my words. I am now quoting what is being said out
across the country. Of course, what that does, it substantiates the
observation I made that if this thing is prolonged through the election
year, it will be increasingly perceived as a political endeavor and it
will lose its credibility as a consequence, or even further lose its
credibility.
The Milwaukee paper said:
Last week, Senator Moseley-Braun asked a good question of
Senator D'Amato, chairman of the Senate committee that is
investigating the Whitewater affair. Could these hearings,
she asked wearily, go on into perpetuity? Although D'Amato
was really at a loss for words, he could not provide a
satisfactory answer to that question, but somebody should.
They then go on to make the point that this thing has been dragged on
long enough.
The Sacramento Bee headline said, ``Enough of Whitewater.''
Senator Alfonse D'Amato, the chairman of the Senate
Whitewater Committee and chairman of Senator Bob Dole's
Presidential campaign in New York, wants to extend his
hearings indefinitely, at least one presumes until after the
November elections. In this case, the Democrats have the best
of the argument by a country mile. With every passing day,
the hearings have looked more like a fishing expedition in
the Dead Sea.
Now, Senator Daschle, I thought, made a very accommodating proposal.
There has been nothing back from the other side to which one can attach
the rubric of reasonableness. It seems clear to me that as long as they
continue to press for an indefinite period or something that is
virtually equivalent to it, we ought to resist it because it simply
makes it more transparent that this is a political exercise.
Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?
Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time----
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, might I ask unanimous consent for 2
additional minutes?
[[Page S1810]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will seek the floor in my own right. I
wish to just make a comment here in responding to the suggestion of our
colleague from New York that the Democrats here voted against an open-
ended $600,000 appropriation hearing process because of the White House
pulling strings. No one suggested that our Republican friends who voted
unanimously to continue this were somehow having strings pulled at all,
nor would I make that suggestion.
But certainly the fact that at this juncture we find ourselves in a
stalemate ought to suggest, particularly when you consider it was only
a few short months ago that this body voted almost unanimously for
these hearings to be conducted--this was not a partisan issue. As in
most cases, it was bipartisan to get this underway. It was almost
unanimous, I believe.
Mr. SARBANES. Ninety-six to three.
Mr. DODD. Ninety-six to three, in fact, for the resolution to
terminate the hearings, to call for the termination on February 29. It
is unfortunate we have come to this where you have a request
unprecedented in the annals of Congress--unprecedented, Mr. President--
for an open-ended hearing with an additional $600,000. That brings the
pricetag of this investigation to in excess of $30 million in this
country.
That is the reason people are upset, frankly, that kind of open-ended
appropriation, no end in sight and, of course, no substantiation of any
unethical or illegal behavior. When you add that to the fact that we
have had virtually no hearings occurring on major issues affecting
people's lives in this country, like Medicare, Medicaid--we are going
to have an extensive debate on education today; we are going to be
cutting $3 billion in education programs--there were hardly three or
four hearings on all of education, as the Presiding Officer knows.
Yet, we had 50 hearings on White water and 10 or 12 hearings on Waco
and Ruby Ridge and almost none on education, none on Medicare, none on
health, and you want to know why people are angry? That is why they are
angry in this country.
We spoke up and said, ``Look, 5 weeks, $185,000.'' That is plenty of
time to complete this process. We are not saying stop it today. We are
saying take another 5 weeks and wrap up the business of this committee.
That is a reasonable, reasonable proposal, and I think it is
regrettable we have a position taken of 4 months now which takes us
virtually into September--when we eliminate the August recess--
September, October, a handful of days before the election.
It is patently political. It is so transparently political that an
infant can see through it, and most of the American people have. That
is why we object to this request of an open-ended proposal with
$600,000. I hope that the majority Members, at least some of them, will
step forward and offer to sit down and resolve this matter so we can
get the work done and not allow it to spill over into the campaign.
I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for providing us some time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority manager of the bill is
recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, as I had started to
say earlier before yielding to my distinguished friend from
Connecticut, I did not know he was going to mention Ruby Ridge, or I
might not have yielded to him. What is wrong with Ruby Ridge?
Mr. DODD. I just say to my colleague, I think there is a value in
having those hearings. My colleague did a good job. My point is, if you
do it to the exclusion of other hearings, then it seems to me we are
off on the wrong track. My colleague did a good job.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague for that comment.
____________________