[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1926-S1933]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 1 p.m. having arrived, there will 
now be 1 hour equally divided on the motion to invoke cloture on the 
motion to proceed to Senate Resolution 227.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, with 
the time to be equally divided between the sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, for the past 16 days our Democratic 
colleagues have used the Senate rules to block consideration of a 
resolution to provide additional funds, funds for the Whitewater 
special committee. That is simply wrong. The Senate has a duty to get 
the full facts about Whitewater.
  The Democrats are filibustering, for 16 days now, to prevent the 
Senate from voting on whether or not to provide additional funds for 
the Whitewater Committee.
  So that the record is clear, we must understand how much we are 
asking for. We are asking $600,000. In addition, I have agreed to allow 
us to have a vote to curtail the committee's investigation to 4 months. 
They have said they wanted to negotiate with us. We are willing to 
negotiate. We have heard nothing except what is almost contemptuous 
because it says we would have to conclude our public hearings by April 
5. That is silly.
  The majority is committed to getting all the facts about Whitewater. 
It is now clear that our Democratic colleagues simply are not.
  Let me ask the question: If Whitewater is much to-do about nothing, 
as the White House claims, why are Democrats afraid of the hearings? 
Why are they afraid to let them go forward? What are they afraid of? 
What does the White House want to hide from the American people? You 
cannot say it is much to-do about nothing, and then oppose having the 
hearings.

[[Page S1927]]

  Second, it is absolutely disingenuous, as some have claimed, that 
this has cost the American people $30 million. The fact is our 
committee has spent about $900,000, and a total of about $450,000 last 
year; so, that when they come up with this $30 million, in an attempt 
to ascribe it to the work of the committee, it is disingenuous and they 
are playing fast and loose with the facts.
  There are a number of unanswered questions. Let me just pose some of 
them.
  Who put the Rose Law Firm building records in the White House 
residence? How do you think they got there? How? Do you think the 
plumber brought them there? The carpenter who was making repairs? The 
men who were working to fix the air-conditioning? Do we really believe 
they brought it there? Do we think the butler brought them there? Or, 
rather, did these records--that were being worked on by Mr. Foster and 
contained his handwritten notes in the margins--come from Mr. Foster's 
office? Did they come there at the explicit directions of the First 
Lady to her chief of staff? We have had the testimony of a young man, 
Mr. Castleton, who says that he was told that he was bringing the 
records up because Mrs. Clinton wanted to look at them.
  Indeed, if she did not look at them as she claimed, how did the 
records wind up there? If all the records were just simply shipped off 
to her lawyers, how do they get over there?
  So we have a question as to how did these billing records 
mysteriously appear. Remember, those records were subpoenaed by the 
special prosecutor. How did they get into the White House residence? My 
colleague from North Carolina has said that one of the most secure 
rooms in the United States of America would be one of the rooms in the 
residence of the President and First Lady. Incredible.
  Another question is, did the Clintons know that James McDougal was 
covering their Whitewater losses for them? He is presently under trial 
in Little Rock, AR. He ran a bank that was a criminal enterprise--we 
found that out--Madison Savings & Loan. Some of the bankers I have met 
recently said, ``Senator, please do not say it was a bank; it was a 
savings and loan.'' And, indeed, they lost over $60 million worth of 
taxpayers' money.
  If one follows just some of what we have uncovered, one sees sham 
transactions, one after another, where insiders were asked to buy land 
and hold land for that bank, would be given 10 percent commissions for 
a land transaction in which it was a total sham, in the end costing the 
taxpayers--this S&L eventually collapsed and left the taxpayers with a 
$60 million bill to foot.
  Did the Clintons take improper tax deductions on their Whitewater 
investment? It is a question. The committee is working on that and 
looking at that. Maybe, indeed, the White House does not want us to 
have those answers or hold public hearings. I guess if you took 
improper tax deductions, you might not want that to come out. Did 
Governor Clinton direct special favors to McDougal to keep Madison 
afloat? If the President--then Governor--did not do any of these 
things, fine, then let the record clear that question. It would seem to 
me if he did, maybe that is why we are hearing all of this puffery, 
smoke, and bellowing that this is politics having these questions 
answered.
  Did the Governor help Dan Lasater, a convicted distributor of 
cocaine, get bond contracts with the State of Arkansas? Did he or did 
he not? I do not know. But again, the question is, if he did not, then 
fine, let us at least go through this and clear the record. Then, I 
would be the first to say that is absolutely an unsubstantiated 
allegation. Did Governor Clinton exchange favors for campaign 
contributions from officials of the Perry County bank? These officials, 
by the way, were just indicted last month. We did not just come out 
with these names. Did that happen or did it not? These are just some of 
the unanswered questions.
  I think that we have an obligation to get the facts. Sixteen days of 
filibuster. Now, the New York Times said that a Democratic filibuster 
against a vote on additional funding would be ``silly stonewalling''. 
They said:

       No argument about politics on either side can outweigh the 
     fact that the White House has yet to reveal the full facts 
     about the land venture, about the Clintons' relationship to 
     McDougal's banking activities, Hillary Rodham Clinton's work 
     as a lawyer on Whitewater matters, and the mysterious 
     movement of documents between the Rose Law Firm, various 
     basements, and closets in the Executive mansion. The 
     committee, politics notwithstanding--

  This is the New York Times.

     has earned an indefinite extension, and a Democratic 
     filibuster against it would be silly stonewalling.

  That is not my statement. That is the New York Times, certainly not a 
spokesperson for the Republican Party or Republican philosophy.
  Yesterday, the Washington Post said essentially the same thing. Let 
me quote what it said:

       Lawmakers and the public have a legitimate interest in 
     getting answers to 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 
     stonewalling or stalling will make Whitewater go away, 
     they are badly mistaken. The probe is not over, whether 
     they tried to call it off or not.

  Again, that is the Washington Post.
  So my colleagues on the other side may attempt to keep the 
investigation and the funding for it from going forth. Again, I have 
offered to curtail the committee's work to 4 months. I think we would 
be making a mistake in setting an arbitrary date certain, but in the 
interest of moving the process forward and of attempting to 
depoliticize it, I am willing to do so.
  Let me suggest that there is a common theme to the number of 
lingering questions. As Pulitzer prize-winning author, James Stewart, 
states in his new book ``Blood Sport'':

       The question of whether specific laws were broken should 
     not obscure the broader issues that make 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 standard 
     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 
     investigators. Perhaps most important, it shows whether they 
     have spoken the truth on subjects of legitimate concern to 
     the American people.

  Mr. Stewart is not some partisan author out to get the Clintons. He 
has a reputation for being fair and thorough. In fact, the Clintons, 
through their close associate, Susan Thomases, first asked Mr. Stewart 
to write this book. He even had direct access to Mrs. Clinton early on. 
Mr. Stewart has uncovered a number of important facts about Whitewater. 
He has identified new witnesses. In an excerpt published in Time 
magazine, Mr. Stewart raises serious questions about the Clintons' role 
in managing the Whitewater investment after 1986. Although the Clintons 
have always claimed to have been passive investors in Whitewater, Mr. 
Stewart found that Mrs. Clinton actively managed the Whitewater 
investments after 1986.
  Mr. President, we will continue to seek a solution to this impasse. 
Yesterday--and I repeat it today--we offered to extend our hearings by 
4 months. But I do not think that we can simply allow this kind of 
obstruction and stonewalling to keep us from attempting to get the 
facts.
  Now, if those facts clear the Clintons and their associates, the 
American people have a right to know; they really do. The White House 
has the opportunity to help in insisting that we conduct these hearings 
expeditiously, yes, but in a manner that will get the truth out there, 
and if it vindicates them, then that should be the case. Now, if indeed 
they have no concern about their actions, then it would seem to me that 
the proper course of action would be to authorize the committee to do 
its work and get to the job of doing its work, and attempt to get those 
witnesses that we now do not have access to as soon as the case is over 
in Little Rock. Certainly, we would hope within the next 6 to 7 weeks 
it will be concluded. Maybe we will not be able to get some or any of 
those witnesses, but at least we will have made our good-faith effort 
in attempting to do so, and to do so in a way that does not impinge 
upon or impair the work of the special counsel.
  So I believe that the facts are clear. I think the American people 
are entitled to get this information, and I

[[Page S1928]]

think what we are facing here is a politically orchestrated attempt to 
stop the committee from doing its work. That does not reflect well upon 
the Senate, the White House, or either of the political parties. The 
process is one that should be continued. It should be continued because 
otherwise the questions will remain: What are they hiding? Why are they 
afraid?
  Again, while the resolution calls for no time limitation, let it be 
clear that this Senator will be happy to amend that to 4 months. We 
have not gotten any satisfactory reply with respect to our offer. It is 
an offer that I make here on the Senate floor again. There are 
limitations when you do that, as described by the former Senate 
majority leader, a Democrat, George Mitchell, when he said, ``When you 
set a time line, you then get people who look to work at that as a mark 
to delay the hearings, delay the release of information.'' 
Notwithstanding that, we would be willing to submit that as a timeframe 
in which to try to complete our work, the work of the committee.
  Some people have said to me, ``What happens if it appears that the 
Democrats are going to continue to filibuster, Senator? What will you 
do?''
  We will be forced to go forward with our work. It will be more 
difficult, and we have a busy agenda for the Banking Committee, but, 
nevertheless, we have to do the best we can; come in early; work as 
many hours as we can; deal with the various maneuvers that our 
Democratic colleagues will undoubtedly employ in attempting to keep the 
committee from doing its work. But a large share of the work that we 
are embarked upon could be undertaken by the Banking Committee. It 
would be difficult in terms of resources, but we will do it. It will 
certainly be, I think, very burdensome as it relates to some of the 
burdens that will be placed upon the staff of the Banking Committee, 
the time of the Banking Committee and its members.
  I also point out that there are certain perils for those who may want 
to circumscribe and carefully proscribe the scope of the inquiry. As 
authorized pursuant to the Resolution 120 we have limited the scope of 
our inquiry. If we were to take this up with the Banking Committee, in 
many cases the scope would not be nearly as limited. I can assure my 
friends and colleagues, if that is the route they choose to take, then 
they will create a situation in which they have to understand that the 
scope will be broadened.
  I say that because they should understand there will come a point in 
time when we would then have to fall back to the use of the Banking 
Committee as opposed to going forward with the special committee that 
has carefully proscribed a methodology for which we could proceed. I 
think we would be making a great mistake. I hope we can work out a 
compromise. Let the chips fall where they may; the offer is on the 
table, and I hope that we can settle this thing without a prolonged 
debate. Otherwise, we will be back here tomorrow, we will be back here 
the next day, and we will be back here next week. The question is, What 
are my friends at the White House afraid of?
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized. He 
has 26 minutes 30 seconds remaining on his time, and the Senator from 
New York has 2 minutes 31 seconds on his time.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from 
North Dakota and then 6 minutes to the Senator from Hawaii.
  Just before doing that, I want to put an editorial in the Record 
because sometimes we get caught up in the debate and we do not get them 
in. I listened to my colleague from New York cite editorials. This one 
is from Friday, March 8, just this past Friday, from Newsday, from the 
Nassau County edition of Newsday.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full editorial be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      [From Newsday, Mar. 8, 1996]

                       Enough Whitewater Hearings

       The Senate Whitewater Committee ran out of time and money 
     on Feb. 29, but it still wants more of both to embarrass 
     President Bill Clinton. Senate Democrats have threatened a 
     filibuster to keep Chairman Alfonse D'Amato (R-N.Y.) from 
     getting $600,000 to continue an open-ended investigation that 
     could stretch to Election Day and beyond.
       The Democrats are right about this. In fact, their 
     counteroffer to D'Amato--$185,000 to wrap up his inquiry in 
     five weeks, at most--is too generous. After 41 days of public 
     hearings and 121 witnesses, D'Amato has nothing of substance 
     to show for the $950,000 the committee has already spent. 
     It's time to hand off to Whitewater independent counsel 
     Kenneth Starr and see how far he can carry the ball.
       This is all the more so now that Starr's office is actually 
     trying a case against Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton's 
     former Whitewater partners. The defendants want the president 
     to appear as a witness in that case, and he should. The only 
     question is whether he should testify in person, on tape, via 
     satellite or whatever. There's precedent for presidential 
     trial testimony on tape, and that should be good enough this 
     time.
       But no more money for Senate hearings. The Senate Watergate 
     Committee, pursuing impeachable offenses by the Nixon 
     administration, called only 37 witnesses. The joint 
     committees on the Reagan administration's illegal arms deals 
     with Iran and the Nicaraguan contras heard a mere 28. The 
     Senate has had enough time for a partisan probe of decade-old 
     Arkansas savings-and-loan deals. If the independent counsel 
     leaves any loose ends, there'll be time to crank it up again.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I will quote from it just very quickly 
in part.

       The Senate Whitewater Committee ran out of time and money 
     on February 29, but it still wants to embarrass President 
     Bill Clinton. Senate Democrats threatened to filibuster to 
     keep Chairman Alfonse D'Amato from getting $600,000 to 
     continue an open-ended investigation that could stretch to 
     election day and beyond. The Democrats are right about this. 
     In fact, their counteroffer to Chairman D'Amato of $185,000 
     to wrap up his inquiry in five weeks, at most--is too 
     generous. After 41 days of public hearings and 121 witnesses, 
     Chairman D'Amato has nothing of substance to show for the 
     $950,000 the committee has already spent. It is time to hand 
     off to Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr and see 
     how far he can carry the ball.

  Then later on in the editorial they say in the closing paragraph:

       But no more money for Senate hearings. The Senate Watergate 
     Committee, pursuing impeachable offenses by the Nixon 
     administration, called only 37 witnesses. The joint 
     committees on the Reagan administration's illegal arms deals 
     with Iran and the Nicaragua contras heard a mere 28. The 
     Senate has had enough time for a partisan probe of decade-old 
     Arkansas savings and loan deals.

  I yield to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, sometimes I walk into the Chamber of the 
Senate and I think that I have stumbled into the wrong Chamber. I hear 
the debate, and I think that is not what is being discussed. In the 
debate a few minutes ago it was said that the Democrats are 
stonewalling on Whitewater. I guess I do not understand. I must have 
missed something. We commissioned a Whitewater inquiry last May--May of 
last year. We provided nearly $1 million for a special investigative 
effort in the Congress last year.
  Now we are saying we are willing to provide additional resources, and 
you ought to wrap this up in the next 5 weeks--5 weeks. And somehow we 
are stonewalling on Whitewater? I mean, it is plenty cold in Montana 
and North Dakota these days, and the heat bills are plenty high. I was 
thinking maybe if we took some of this hot air out there, it would heat 
the two States for the entire winter. Stonewalling on Whitewater? What 
on Earth are people talking about?
  This is a manifestation of Parkinson's law. If you study Parkinson's 
law, one of his laws was that the amount of time needed to do a job 
always expands to the amount of time available to do the job. This is 
the manifestation of Parkinson's law. This inquiry, after spending $26 
million on the independent counsel and still counting--this inquiry 
which is the political inquiry--now they want to extend to election 
1996.
  Some of us say maybe you ought to get up early in the morning now. 
Maybe you ought to go 5 days a week now. Maybe you ought to get the 
witnesses in now for the next 5 weeks and finish this investigation. As 
for me, it does not matter with respect to these records. Get a rental 
truck, back it up to the White House, get a vacuum cleaner, find a 
bunch of people that can read, and read all the records. As far as I am 
concerned, whatever the truth is let the truth come out. But do you 
need from last May until the election

[[Page S1929]]

day of 1996 to demonstrate what this issue is? I think not. That is not 
what the issue is here. There is a right way to do things and a wrong 
way to do things.
  We have said, in the next 5 weeks finish this investigation. Do your 
work. And what we are told by the other side is we are stonewalling. 
What a bunch of nonsense. While we are doing this, we are saying this 
is the most important thing for the Congress to do. Do you know what we 
are not doing? We are not having hearings on the issue of health care 
and Medicare and what we ought to do to solve that problem. Nobody is 
having hearings on the issue of jobs. Why are we losing jobs in this 
country? Why are jobs moving out of our country? Why does our Tax Code 
contain this insidious incentive that pays corporations to shut their 
plants in this country and move them overseas, and why does not 
somebody in this Congress do something about that? Nobody is holding 
hearings about what our monetary policy to doing to this country. Why 
cannot we have more than a 2.5-percent economic growth? What about the 
Fed and the Fed's policies? Nobody is talking about hearings on a whole 
range of issues dealing with the things that are central to people's 
lives.

  This is the number of hearings. There were 41 days of hearings since 
last May on Whitewater, 12 days on crime, 3 days on education, no 
hearings on the economy and jobs, and no hearings on Medicare and 
health care. The question is, What is the priority?
  I want to get to the bottom of Whitewater. We have had 100 FBI agents 
and independent counsel that spent $23 million, and we have had a 
special inquiry in Congress since last May. Now we have people telling 
us we want to go for another 4 or 5 months. You know that some of us 
serve here because we are interested in doing the people's business, 
part of which deals with the issue of jobs, health care, the economy, 
education, and a whole range of things. Get every record you want. Get 
every record you can. Study it forever. But I do not think we ought to 
have an unlimited amount of money given by the taxpayers for an 
unlimited inquiry to take us to election day 1996. Let us finish this 
in the next 5 weeks. Let us decide to do this and do it right; finish 
the testimony, finish the report, report back to the Senate, and then 
let us get on with the other business that confronts the American 
people.
  We have enormous challenges. We have budget challenges. We have 
deficits. We have jobs, health care, and education. I have recited 
plenty of them to do. But the interesting thing is that no one seems 
very interested in focusing on those challenges. My constituents are 
interested. They are very interested in the question about what makes 
our education system work better. How do we advance the interest of our 
kids to have the best education system in the world? What do we do 
about jobs that are leaving the country? What kind of policies can we 
put in place to deal with that? That is what my constituents are 
interested in.
  I am not suggesting that you have no business in the Whitewater 
inquiry. I voted for the funding last May for $1 million, and I will 
vote for additional funding. My objection is to what I think is kind of 
a thinly disguised approach by some to say we want unlimited time here; 
we want to work 2 or 3 days a week; we want to sort of move along 
leisurely. If you were hauling mail, you would go out and hire horses, 
I guess, and create some sort of ``Pony Express'' these days. That is 
the speed with which we see this inquiry moving.
  All we are saying is let us get this job done. We have said we will 
provide appropriations for 5 weeks' additional inquiry, write a report, 
and let us finish it. There has been no other inquiry in the history of 
Congress that I am aware of that accepts this as a precedent. Nothing 
comes close to what you are suggesting and what has been done here. The 
Senator from Maryland has made that point over and over again. Yet we 
have people stand with indignation and say, ``You all are 
stonewalling.'' What a bunch of nonsense.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Hawaii.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on May 17 of last year, this Senate voted 
96 to 3 to create a special committee to investigate the so-called 
Whitewater affair. This bipartisan vote established the special 
committee with its primary purpose to get all the facts on Whitewater 
to the American people.
  This bipartisan Senate vote imposed a February 29, 1996, deadline for 
the committee to complete its work to ensure that the facts were 
presented to the American people in a balanced and timely manner and 
before the country entered the politically charged atmosphere of a 
Presidential campaign.
  Yet, as I listen intently to the ongoing debate, much of the 
bipartisan spirit which this body exhibited on May 17 no longer exists. 
Regretfully and sadly, it appears that the Republican majority has now 
chosen to forego bipartisanship in an effort to indefinitely extend the 
special committee's mandate, at a cost of $600,000, and prolong the 
investigation into the 1996 Presidential campaign.
  This Republican extension request is unprecedented, and it is 
unreasonable. The U.S. Senate has never before conducted an open-ended 
political investigation of a sitting American President during a 
Presidential election year.
  During the course of this debate, reference has been made to the 1987 
Iran-Contra hearings. The committee was able to complete its 
investigation in a 10-month period within the deadline set by the 
Congress. The Iran-Contra affair was an international event that had 
major consequences beyond our shores. It involved the constitutional 
relationship between the executive and legislative branches in the 
shaping of foreign policy. It involved the credibility of our foreign 
policy. It involved our relations with other countries and it involved 
the actions of our intelligence service and some of our Nation's most 
closely held secrets.
  Because of the profound issues in question, we in Congress were 
compelled to investigate the episode, and for precisely the same reason 
we were compelled to ensure that the Iran-Contra investigation was 
conducted in an atmosphere free of partisanship and theatrics. I 
strongly believed then, as I do now, that the Nation would be ill-
served by a congressional panel wantonly weakening a President for 
presumed political benefit.
  The Iran-Contra Committee was obligated to investigate the conduct of 
the highest Government officers, and we were determined to let the 
facts lead us to where they willed. But we did not perform this task in 
a way that suggested to our adversaries that we were a nation divided. 
I believed we avoided this impression because of the lessons learned 
during the Watergate investigation.
  The Senate committee that investigated Watergate, on which I served, 
had the same mandate as do today's select committees: to seek the facts 
about the event in question and propose legislation to prevent a 
repetition.
  The structure of the Watergate Committee encouraged partisanship. 
There were majority and minority lawyers, majority and minority 
investigators, majority and minority secretaries and clerks. Even the 
committee's budget was divided into Democratic and Republican portions.
  After the conclusion of the investigation, the committee's minority 
counsel and now our very distinguished colleague, Senator Fred 
Thompson, wrote that loyalty to the Republican minority was ``one all-
important criterion'' for hiring his staff. ``We are going to try our 
best to have a bipartisan investigation, but if it comes down to the 
question of us and them, I don't want to worry about who is us and who 
is them.''
  Mr. President, my one condition for assuming the role of chairman of 
the Senate Iran Committee was that there would be no majority and no 
minority staffs but a unified staff whose members reported to the 
committee as a whole and not to Democrats or Republicans. Our chief 
counsel, Mr. Arthur Liman, regarded all members of the committee as his 
clients, and, under his direction, our staff members worked side by 
side unconcerned whether their neighbor was one of us or one of them.
  The structure of the staff would have been meaningless if the members 
of the

[[Page S1930]]

committee were determined to make the Iran-Contra investigation a 
partisan matter. This did not happen.
  Our colleague, former Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire and vice 
chair of this Senate Iran-Contra Committee, was empowered to make 
decisions in my absence. We collaborated on everything, and we divided 
the responsibility for witnesses among all members of the committee so 
the hearings became a collective matter. At no time during our closed 
committee meetings did any member raise political issues or hint at a 
Democratic attempt to smear the President or a Republican scheme to 
cover things up.
  In comparison, nearly 17 months had elapsed from the date the Senate 
created the Watergate Committee until the committee report was 
published. The Watergate hearing itself dragged on for more than 8 
months. The Iran-Contra Committee worked hard to accomplish its work 
within a 10-month period, hearings included. Yes, there were requests 
by Democrats and Republicans that we seek an indefinite time limit on 
the hearings, but the chairman of the House committee, Representative 
Hamilton, and I, in conjunction with our vice chairs, strongly 
recommended against an open-ended investigation. We sought to ensure 
that our investigation was completed in a timely fashion to preserve 
the committee's bipartisanship and to avoid any exploitation of 
President Reagan during an election year.
  The Special Committee on Whitewater has had 41 days of hearings, five 
public meetings, and now has made an unprecedented and unreasonable 
request to indefinitely extend the special committee's mandate. It will 
be a $600,000 tab, and I suppose it will prolong the investigation into 
the Presidential campaign with a possibility of politically damaging 
and embarrassing the incumbent President.
  Mr. President, the Democrats are committed to ensuring that the 
American people know the facts on Whitewater but that it be done in the 
same bipartisan fashion as the Iran-Contra hearings, and not for the 
exploitation or for the embarrassment of the sitting President.
  Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, while the distinguished Senator from 
Hawaii is still in the Chamber, I commend him for his statement and 
underscore--underscore--the responsible manner in which he dealt with 
the Iran-Contra issue.
  At the time, there were Members of the Congress, a Democratically 
controlled Congress, who wanted to extend those hearings well into 
1988, a Presidential election year, for political purposes. And that 
was obvious. The Republican leader of the Senate, Senator Dole, 
strongly urged there be a time limit on the work of the committee. He 
was fiercely opposed to the notion of an open-ended extension and was 
very clear in making that point in debate on the floor and off the 
floor in comments to the media.
  Senator Inouye, who chaired the special committee in the Senate, and 
Congressman Hamilton, rejected this proposal by some Democrats to 
prolong the hearing into the election year and therefore exploit, for 
political purposes, President Reagan's difficulties, and they settled 
on a reasonable time period. In fact, they moved it up in response to 
the representation made to them by Senator Dole.
  It was Senator Dole at the time who pressed very hard that there 
should be a reasonable time limit, that it should stay out of the 
election year. In fact, Senator Dole, on the floor, said: ``I am 
heartened by what I understand to be the strong commitment of both the 
chairman and vice chairman to avoid fishing expeditions. I am pleased 
to note that, as a result of a series of discussions which have 
involved myself, the majority leader, and the chairman and vice 
chairman designate of the committee, we have changed the date on which 
the committee's authorization will expire.'' And they moved it forward.
  Senator Inouye took the lead in achieving that constructive and 
responsible result. I simply want to underscore it and contrast it with 
the situation we are now facing, where we have a proposal, now, for an 
unlimited time period, an additional $600,000.
  I yield myself 1 more minute.
  Furthermore, in order to complete its work, the Iran-Contra 
Committee, on which I was privileged to serve, under the very 
distinguished chairmanship of the Senator from Hawaii, held 21 days of 
hearings in the last 23 days, in late July and August, in order to 
complete its hearings. Contrast that with the work of this committee, 
which held 1 day of hearings in the last 2 weeks of its existence in 
the latter part of February; which held only 8 days of hearings in the 
entire month of February, whereas the Iran-Contra Committee held 21 
days of hearings in order to wind the thing up.
  The minority leader has made, I think, a very reasonable proposal in 
terms of providing some additional time to finish this matter up. The 
committee should intensify its schedule and complete it on time, and it 
ought to follow the example set by the distinguished Senator from 
Hawaii when he chaired the Iran-Contra Committee and worked assiduously 
to keep partisanship and politics out of the inquiry and to keep the 
inquiry out of the election year.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, what is the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 10 minutes 
remaining. The Senator from Maryland has 8 minutes, 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I find all of this debate about Iran-
Contra very interesting. I was not here for it, and so I enjoy being 
brought up to date on past history. It is interesting, but it is 
irrelevant to the issue before us because the issue before us is: Are 
there still things yet to find out about Whitewater which need to be 
found out? This has nothing whatever to do with whether or not the 
Iran-Contra Committee was able to find out what it needed to find out 
from Ollie North in the timeframe that it set for itself. This has 
nothing to do with the timeframe of the Whitewater Committee, which is 
trying to find out information that has been denied it by a series of 
circumstances, some of which I believe are deliberate.
  I make that statement, recognizing that it, perhaps, is emotionally 
charged for some. I try to stay away from emotionally charged 
statements on this issue because I realize how easily this can get out 
of hand. But I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there has 
been a deliberate attempt on the part of those who have been called 
before the committee to withhold information from the committee and to 
see to it that the committee does not receive that which it needs. I 
know of no such charges that have been made in past investigations, 
and, even if they were, frankly, they are irrelevant to this issue.
  This issue is very simple, again, Mr. President. It is simply this: 
What is there yet to find? What will it take us to find it? It has 
nothing to do with any past investigation of any other circumstance. It 
has to do with this investigation of this set of circumstances. What is 
there yet to find, and what will it take us to find it?
  The editorials that have been quoted here--I have quoted them, the 
New York Times, the Washington Post, others. The most recent one I will 
return to again, as my distinguished chairman has. But it makes this 
point, relating to the question of, ``Can the committee not wind its 
affairs up?'' This is what the Washington Post has said. I repeat it 
again:

       . . . here is part of the problem; The McDougals and 
     Governor Tucker are currently unavailable for Washington 
     testimony as they are defending themselves against a 21-count 
     indictment handed up last August alleging fraud and 
     conspiracy on their part. It came courtesy of independent 
     counsel Kenneth Starr and a federal grand jury in Little 
     Rock. Judge Hale, whose earlier guilty plea slims down 
     considerably his chances of ever returning to the bench, is 
     similarly occupied in Arkansas and unavailable to be heard by 
     anyone in Washington. He is the prosecution's key witness 
     against the governor and the McDougals. Their trial, which 
     just got started, is one reason the Whitewater committee 
     hearings have been dragged out.

  I will repeat that, Mr. President. ``Their trial is one reason the

[[Page S1931]]

Whitewater Committee hearings have been dragged out.''
  It is not a conspiracy on the part of the Republicans. It is not an 
attempt on the part of the Republican National Committee to delay this 
into an election year. There is a trial going on, over which the 
Republicans on the committee have no control, that is preventing these 
witnesses from coming before us. This is why we are asking for a time 
that will allow us to deal with those witnesses when they become 
available. We do not know when this trial will be over. If we knew with 
certainty when the trial would be over and when these witnesses would 
be available, I, for one, would be willing to set a date, appropriately 
far off into the future, that would allow us time to deal with these 
witnesses. We do not know. We cannot know. And, therefore, it does not 
make sense for us to set a firm date.
  Back to the editorial, quoting:

       The other reason is the protracted battle with the White 
     House over subpoenaed documents and the very slow and 
     uncertain way certain important documents finally are 
     produced.

  In other words, the delay in the eyes of the Washington Post has not 
been because the committee wants to drag it out for political reasons; 
it has been because the White House has been unresponsive.
  I am a member of this committee. I have been to as many of the 
proceedings as I possibly could, given the schedule and the other 
challenges that apply. I thought I knew this controversy fairly well. I 
have now picked up the recent copy of Time magazine and read the first 
installment of a book that was written, initially at the recommendation 
of Susan Thomases, one of the President and First Lady's closest 
friends and confidants, in an attempt to make sure the whole story got 
out.
  She went to the author and said, ``Will you write a good book on 
this?''
  The author spent an hour and a half in the White House with Mrs. 
Clinton, and she said, ``I will cooperate with you, and I will see to 
it that everybody connected with me will cooperate with you. We want 
the truth to come out.''
  Now, we have the book that was created by that genesis and I can only 
describe it as devastating. It is devastating to those who say, ``There 
is no there there.'' It is devastating to those who say the Republicans 
are on a partisan activity, because nothing significant really 
happened.
  As I say, I am a member of this committee. I thought I knew this 
issue fairly well, until I read this week's issue of Time magazine and 
found out there is a whole lot more that I did not know about, and I 
have been a member of the committee attending these sessions.

  So, Mr. President, I conclude by saying there is plenty more yet to 
find out, and I am sorry if it did not come out in the same timeframe 
as other investigations have had. But that is entirely beside the 
point.
  The point is, I repeat again, what is there yet to find out and what 
will it take for us to find it? The answer to that question dictates 
that we proceed in the fashion that the distinguished chairman, Mr. 
D'Amato, has asked us to proceed.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 42 seconds remaining on his 
side of the aisle.
  Mr. BENNETT. I apologize to the Senator. I thought I had more time 
than that. I yield all 42 seconds to the Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, as we have just heard, Time magazine 
has released excerpts from a new book, ``Blood Sport,'' which is one of 
the most revealing and down-to-Earth accounts of Whitewater we have 
had. It certainly is easier to follow than anything we have seen, doing 
the best we could with the Whitewater hearings: Coming in a day, skip 
days, a day out. It has been very difficult for the average citizen to 
follow what we have been doing and what we have been trying to pursue.
  This book chronologically identifies exactly what went on and what 
happened. I think, again, it points to the very great need for us to 
continue the hearings, and the public will see the need, once they read 
the book and read the excerpt that was in Time magazine.
  It shows the Clintons to be much more active partners in Whitewater 
than any of us believed at one time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. All time has 
expired on the chairman's side of the aisle.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we provide 4 
additional minutes to be equally divided, so that we each have 2 
minutes.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Four additional minutes for each side.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I asked for 4 minutes, 2 minutes for each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Carolina is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, it shows the Clintons were much more 
actively involved than we had any idea; that the McDougals put far more 
money into the project than did the Clintons; and that they clearly 
used money from the savings and loan to supplement the Whitewater 
venture. I think we need to and should pursue it.
  Further, there is a new revelation of how Mrs. Clinton received legal 
business from Madison. She told the public that a young associate, Mr. 
Massey, brought the business to the law firm. Then Mr. Massey appeared 
before us and said he did not bring any business to the law firm. So 
then she said it was Vince Foster who brought it. She changed her mind. 
McDougal said that Bill Clinton urged him to give business to Hillary 
Clinton because the Clintons needed the money.
  The book reveals that there was a clear witness to that, Susan 
McDougal's brother, and I think we need him to testify as soon as 
possible.
  Many people might say, ``So what, 20 years ago, why is it relevant 
today?'' There are a number of reasons. First, the White House is 
engaged in a massive coverup of the entire episode, an inept coverup, 
but at least an attempt to cover up.
  We now know what the First Lady truly meant when she told Maggie 
Williams she did not want 20 years of her life in Arkansas probed by 
the Senate. We now know why. But it is a true indication of the way 
they ran things in Arkansas, and they clearly have demonstrated they 
are going to run them the same way in Washington. They sure tried to 
run them the same way. Old habits die hard, and we have seen the same 
characteristics that we know of in Arkansas come about in Washington.
  I hope we can end the filibuster and let the Senate vote and then let 
the American people decide if Whitewater hearings are worth pursuing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. SARBANES. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 10 minutes, 30 
seconds.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized for 4 
minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to be very clear with respect to 
the reasonableness of the issue that is before us. When Senate 
Resolution 120 was adopted, it was adopted and encompassed within it 
certain premises, all of which are now being departed from or violated 
by the proposal offered by the Senator from New York.
  The first premise was that there would be a fixed deadline in the 
proposal that would seek to keep the inquiry out of the election year. 
That was the February 29 date, and it was agreed to.
  We had overwhelming bipartisan support for the resolution that was 
adopted last year for this inquiry. Regrettably, the majority has now 
gone down a different track and made impossible, up to this juncture, a 
further bipartisan concord with respect to this matter.
  Senate Resolution 120 was consistent with Senate precedents. The 
proposal that is now before us is a complete departure from Senate 
precedents. The proposal last year for a fixed-ending

[[Page S1932]]

date reflected the very argument that Senator Dole made in 1987 with 
respect to Iran-Contra, where some Democrats wanted to extend it into 
the election year and he said that would not be a fair and reasonable 
thing to do. Senator Inouye and others accepted that proposition, and 
they put on a deadline. It is very important that that be understood. 
The proposal before us departs from that essential premise.
  Second, this committee had only 1 day of hearings in the last 2 weeks 
of its existence in the latter part of February. In Iran-Contra, we 
held 21 days of hearings in the last 23 days in order to complete the 
work. The distinguished minority leader, Senator Daschle, wrote to 
Senator Dole in mid-January saying the committee should intensify its 
work through the balance of January and through February in order to 
complete on schedule. The committee did not do that.
  Third, this resolution premises that there will be consultation 
between the majority and the minority. In fact, we had such 
consultation in the formulation of Senate Resolution 120, and when it 
was brought to the floor, it had been worked out on the basis of 
discussions between the majority and the minority. That has not taken 
place in this instance. In fact, Senator Daschle's letter to Senator 
Dole remained unanswered for a month period. I know Senator Dole was 
distracted with other matters, but nevertheless, we are still left with 
the problem with which we are confronted.
  Finally, I want to underscore that the Office of Independent Counsel 
will continue its inquiry. It was an essential premise of the original 
resolution that we would not come in behind the independent counsel 
and, in fact, Chairman D'Amato and I wrote to Mr. Starr at the 
beginning of October to make that very point. It was strongly argued 
that extending it out would turn it political.
  Now it is becoming political; we simply have to recognize that. There 
are editorials around the country that are beginning to say that--here 
is one from Greensboro:

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

  One from a Sacramento paper:

       Senator 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 or at least, one presumes, until after the 
     November election. 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.

  The minority leader, Senator Daschle, has made a very reasonable 
proposal.
  The proposal for an indefinite extension, or this 4 months, which 
amounts to the same thing, is not reasonable. It is not consistent with 
the premises on which we got an overwhelming bipartisan consensus to 
pass the initial inquiry resolution.
  I yield the remainder of our time to the distinguished minority 
leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished minority leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the distinguished ranking member of the committee has 
said it so well and ably. I applaud him for making the case once more 
prior to the time we are called upon to cast our vote this afternoon. 
There is very little one can add to what he has said so well.
  This is an unprecedented request. Everyone needs to be fully 
appreciative of the nature of what it is we are called upon to vote on 
here--an unprecedented request, an open-ended, unlimited request to 
continue this investigation forever if the majority chooses to do so--
forever. There is no deadline, none whatsoever.
  So, Mr. President, we have looked back to try to find some other 
occasion when a committee has sought that kind of authority to say, 
``We don't know whether we're going to take a week, a month, 2 months, 
the rest of the session. We may even need to go into the next Congress. 
Who knows? What we do know is that we're not going to give you any 
specific timeframe within which we realistically think we can finish 
this investigation.''
  So what does that tell you, Mr. President? What it tells me is that 
they want to keep open the option to take this right up until the very 
last day of this Presidential campaign. We are unwilling to accept 
that. We have indicated, in as clear a way as we possibly can, that we 
want to find a way to resolve this once and for all. We want a way to 
find a resolution in the amount of time and the amount of money to be 
dedicated to this investigation, even though now we anticipate more 
than $32 million in total, within the Congress and within the special 
investigation that is ongoing, has already been dedicated to this.
  If we need to spend another $100,000, another $130,000, $140,000, we 
will do that. Our amendment suggests $185,000. Our amendment suggests 
that the investigation go on at least through April 3, and then gives 
the opportunity to write a report through May 10.
  If we had used every day we had available to us, if the committee had 
taken the opportunity that they had available to them in using Mondays 
and Fridays and days throughout the week for which they chose not to 
have any hearings, we would not have to extend it. But for whatever 
reason, the committee chose not to meet on a lot of Mondays, they chose 
not to meet on virtually every Friday. There were a lot of days during 
the week, for whatever reason, they chose not to meet.
  So it was not that we did not have the time. We simply did not use 
the time very wisely. And the majority, if they could do it over again, 
I am sure, would use that time more wisely. But now, to say that is the 
reason we want to carry this thing out forever is just unacceptable.
  Mr. President, the second point I emphasize is that we have made a 
good-faith offer. That offer stands, although I will say that the clock 
is ticking. We are simply not going to extend this thing out over and 
over farther and farther just because we are not able to resolve this 
difference today. The clock is ticking. The calendar pages are turning. 
The offer that we have been given is unacceptable. The counteroffer, 
this notion that somehow we now could go 4 or 5 months longer, is also 
unacceptable. We do not want to make this a convention issue. We do not 
want to make it a Presidential campaign issue. We want to get the 
facts. We want to resolve these matters. We want to resolve this issue 
once and for all.
  We can do that in a time certain. We can do that in a bipartisan way. 
We can do that working together to make the best use of the time, 
whatever additional time is requested. We can do all of that. But we 
have to resolve this matter. The standoff that we are in today is 
unacceptable. We do not like it. We know the majority does not like it. 
So let us sit down and try to find a way to resolve it. But let us 
recognize an unlimited request or any request that takes us into 
political conventions and the campaign season for 1996 is unacceptable, 
too.
  So, Mr. President, reluctantly, I urge my colleagues once more to 
vote against this cloture motion. I believe that we will continue to be 
able to defeat the cloture motion for whatever length of time this 
unreasonable request is, the one before us. We can resolve it this 
afternoon. It is time we do so.
  It is time we get on with the real business of the Senate. I hope we 
can do it sooner rather than later. I yield the floor and yield the 
remainder of our time.


                             cloture motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The clerk will 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 S. Res. 227 regarding the Whitewater extension.
         Alfonse D'Amato, Trent Lott, C.S. Bond, Fred Thompson, 
           Slade Gorton, Don Nickles, Paul Coverdell, Spencer 
           Abraham, Chuck Grassley, Conrad Burns, Rod Grams, 
           Richard G. Lugar, Mike

[[Page S1933]]

           DeWine, Mark Hatfield, Orrin G. Hatch, and Thad 
           Cochran.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on Senate Resolution 227 shall be brought to a close? The 
yeas and nays are required under rule XXII. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative 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. 29 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, the nays are 47. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.

                          ____________________