[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.
____________________