[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 49 (Wednesday, April 17, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3450-S3454]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            WHITEWATER DEVELOPMENT CORP. AND RELATED MATTERS

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate turn to its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 246) to authorize the use of 
     additional funds for salaries and expenses of the Special 
     Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation 
     and related matters, and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senate is about to reauthorize the 
special committee's operations for a specific, limited period.
  It is my understanding, and that of all my colleagues on this side of 
the aisle, that the special committee will conclude its hearing 
schedule no later than June 14, 1996, and further, that no other 
committee of the Senate intends to hold hearings on Whitewater-related 
matters thereafter. I have also discussed with the majority leader and 
will commit to him that it is not the intention of Members on this side 
of the aisle to object to the special committee meeting under the 
provisions of rule XXVI nor to obstruct the special committee's 
progress, thereby preventing them from completing their work pursuant 
to the latest deadlines outlined in this resolution.
  It is the further understanding on this side that the report of the 
special committee, required to be submitted to the Senate pursuant to 
Senate Resolution 120, will be submitted no later than the close of 
business on June 17, 1996.
  It is also our understanding that the majority leader does not 
believe any amendments, motions, or resolutions will be offered in the 
Senate regarding further extensions of the operations of the special 
committee beyond June 17, 1996.
  Mr. President, I ask the distinguished majority leader whether I have 
correctly stated the situation as he now sees it?
  Mr. DOLE. The Senator has correctly stated the understandings on both 
sides of the aisle as I see it at this time.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed 
to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the resolution (S. Res. 246) was agreed to, as follows:

                              S. Res. 246

     SECTION 1. FUNDS FOR SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF SPECIAL 
                   COMMITTEE.

       There shall be made available from the contingent fund of 
     the Senate out of the Account for Expenses for Inquiries and 
     Investigations, for use not later than June 17, 1996, by the 
     Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development 
     Corporation and Related Matters (hereafter in this Resolution 
     referred to as the ``special committee''), established by 
     Senate Resolution 120, 104th Congress, agreed to May 17, 1995 
     (as amended by Senate Resolution 153, 104th Congress, agreed 
     to July 17, 1995) to carry out the investigation, study, and 
     hearings authorized by that Senate Resolution--
       (1) a sum equal to not more than $450,000.
       (A) for payment of salaries and other expenses of the 
     special committee; and
       (B) not more than $350,000 of which may be used by the 
     special committee for the procurement of the services of 
     individual consultants or organizations thereof; and
       (2) such additional sums as may be necessary for agency 
     contributions related to the compensation of employees of the 
     special committee.

     SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.

       (a) Hearings.--Not later than June 14, 1996, the special 
     committee shall complete the investigation, study, and 
     hearings authorized by Senate Resolution 120, 104th Congress, 
     agreed to May 17, 1995 (as amended by Senate Resolution 153, 
     104th Congress, agreed to July 17, 1995).
       (b) Report.--Not later than June 17, 1996, the special 
     committee shall submit to the Senate the final public 
     reported required by section 9(b) of Senate Resolution 120, 
     104th Congress, agreed to May 17, 1995 (as amended by Senate 
     Resolution 153, 104th Congress, agreed to July 17, 1995) on 
     the results of the investigation, study, and hearings 
     conducted pursuant to that Resolution.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I understand Senator D'Amato and Senator 
Sarbanes may want to speak briefly.
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.

[[Page S3451]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me just take several moments to thank 
the distinguished leaders, the majority leader and the minority leader, 
and a number of my colleagues on the Banking Committee on both sides of 
the aisle for helping us arrive at an agreement that will permit the 
business of the Senate to be conducted in an orderly, thoughtful, 
thorough fashion so that we can complete the work of the Whitewater 
Committee in a timely manner, recognizing that we are fast 
approaching--we are already in--the political season, but that season 
becomes even more and more political as the days and weeks move ahead.
  It is my hope that working together, as we have in most of our 
undertakings on the Banking Committee and on the special Whitewater 
Committee, we can handle the matters that come before us, even those 
that may be somewhat contentious, in a bipartisan manner.
  Ours was to get the facts. Ours is to report back to the Senate of 
the United States as best we can. Ours is not to prejudge. Ours is not 
to preclude. But ours is to be the searcher of facts, again, given the 
limitations that exist. It does not pay for us to go into what the 
limitations are. I must say that there are those areas beyond the 
ability of the Senate and its investigation to control or to deal with 
as it relates to time, availability of witnesses, et cetera.
  So, recognizing those, we may never be able to satisfactorily 
complete the job of getting all of the facts or determining all of 
them, recognizing the limitations that we have. But I think if we do 
the best we possibly can, if we work together in the spirit of people 
who are willing to understand each other's problems, the limitations 
that we do have on us, ours will be an important task, it will not be 
an easy task, but it will be one that we can attempt to fulfill and 
meet the mandates of the Senate and, indeed, of the Constitution and, 
more importantly, of our people. We are going to be thorough, 
comprehensive, but yet fair.
  Let me conclude by saying that I hope that we can finish by the 14th 
of June. That is the time which we have spelled out. I believe that 
reasonably, if we see that there are matters that are yet to be 
addressed that are important, that are substantial, that we can come to 
an accommodation to deal with that. It is my hope, though, that we will 
be able to deal with this, conclude the public hearings by the 14th of 
June, and thereafter have our report within the 3 days that we have 
provided.
  I believe this is the best manner in which to proceed, less in the 
way of contention. I certainly hope--as my colleagues have, my 
Democratic colleagues have helped and assisted in arriving at this 
agreement--that they will work with us. We pledge to work with them to 
get all of those concerns, all of those people that we wish to get 
evidence from, testimony from, to be as cooperative and to use the good 
offices of my colleagues on the Democratic side to accomplish this 
goal.
  So I want to commend both leaders. I want to thank Senator Sarbanes, 
Senator Dodd, the other members, the Republican members, of the 
committee for being patient, for being thoughtful, and doing a very 
difficult process. I believe that the agreement that we have hammered 
out is in the best interest of the Senate and, more importantly, the 
people of the United States. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, let me say that the resolution which has 
just been passed represents a great deal of effort over a considerable 
period of time and obviously encompassed accommodations and adjustments 
on both sides and from many parties. I believe the resolution provides 
us now with the framework for the completion of the work of the special 
committee on Whitewater. The resolution requires the submission of the 
special committee's final public report by the 17th of June, and 
provides a budget to carry forward this work which we believe is 
adequate for the task. It provides for the hearings to end by the 14th 
of June.
  I must say, I hope, as the chairman has stated, that we are able to 
conduct through this period of time fair and thorough and objective 
hearings.
  The chairman is right, an effort has been made to do that in the 
past, I think with a fair amount of success, although as he observed we 
have had on occasion perhaps strayed off that path somewhat. I hope we 
do not, as we move forward now from today into the middle of June.
  Many people contributed to making this possible. I want to recognize 
the contributions of the colleagues on my side, Senators Dodd and Bryan 
and Boxer and Murray and Moseley-Braun and Kerry and Simon and, of 
course, the chairman and his colleagues who have worked on this. And, 
of course, the two leaders have been involved to some extent in order 
to bring this matter to this point.
  The committee back in January, pursuant to the previous resolution, 
was required to report to the Senate about whether additional time was 
needed. At the time, there was a difference of opinion about that. The 
majority said additional time was needed; the minority felt not. We had 
a sharp difference about that. The minority leader made a proposition 
for an extension. The majority, of course, had a resolution before us 
for an unlimited extension. This, of course, is not an unlimited 
extension, and I think it is very important to recognize that.
  I simply close by saying that I hope in the weeks to come, now as we 
approach the 17th of June for the submission of the final report, that 
we will be able to move ahead expeditiously with our work. It is the 
intention of the minority to seek to work in a constructive way with 
the majority to carry out these hearings in a responsible manner, not 
really to explore allegations, not to make allegations, but to carry 
out the kind of hearings for which the Senate can take some measure of 
comfort that it has been done according to appropriate standards. Mr. 
President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to join my colleague from Maryland in 
thanking our colleague from New York, the chairman of the committee, 
and others for putting this together. I want to commend as well my 
colleague from Maryland, who has done a very fine job in helping to 
fashion this resolution. I join with him and the chairman of the 
committee and others in hoping that we will be able now over the next 
several weeks to conduct a thorough and complete and fair 
investigation.
  I will say, Mr. President, there are many people, of course, on this 
side of the aisle who, frankly, in fact, may have voted, if there were 
a recorded vote, may have voted even against that resolution, who felt 
that we should have wrapped this up and it is over with. So there is no 
recorded vote on this, and apparently there will be none. So there will 
be no actual recording, but Members can obviously speak for themselves. 
I would have voted for this resolution if there was a recorded vote. I 
want my colleagues to know that.
  It would not be any great surprise to my colleague from New York if I 
say to him, Mr. President, that I would do so with great reluctance 
because I, frankly, would have liked to wrap this up earlier. So I read 
this and see this as a determination now to conclude our work by the 
14th of June, with a couple extra days to get our report done. That is 
our goal and our determination. Certainly our colleague from New York 
has made it clear to us that that is his intent as well. We respect 
that and take that. The distinguished majority leader has indicated 
that as well.
  So we have a lot of work, I know, to do in the coming weeks. But we 
are confident we can do it and bring this to a conclusion. It has been 
a long process, Mr. President. I think, as someone pointed out, it may 
be the longest set of hearings in the history of the Congress on a 
particular matter like this. Someone may challenge that, but certainly 
in modern Senate history, I think, the longest record, the longest set 
of hearings, at great cost. I am not speaking now exclusively of our 
work here, but the overall investigation. So the American public, I 
think, wants us to complete our work on this.
  Also, I point out that because this is a special committee but made 
up primarily of members of the Banking Committee--of course, the 
chairman is

[[Page S3452]]

the chairman of the Banking Committee as well--there is a great deal of 
work we have to do on the Banking Committee before this Congress ends. 
Our colleague from California has a number of issues that she is 
interested in. Senator Murray, from the State of Washington, has 
mentioned several issues she is interested in, along with our colleague 
from Maryland and others.
  So our sincere hope is that not only will we get this done, I say to 
our colleagues--I know many are asking the question: Are you really 
going to get your work done? I am saying here we are going to have this 
done on June 14, a report several days afterward, and our Banking 
Committee is also going to get its work done on other issues that have 
been raised as well that should be addressed.
  With that, Mr. President, I commend my colleague from New York, my 
colleague from Maryland, our ranking member, for bringing this to a 
final conclusion. We will have our work done by June 14.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am not going to belabor the points that 
were made except to add my thanks to my ranking member, Senator 
Sarbanes, and my chairman, Senator D'Amato, for working this out with 
the able assistance of many people, particularly Senator Dodd.
  I have always taken the position as long as there are Senators on the 
floor making it sound like there are issues that are being covered up 
or not looked at, it was very important for us to continue, because 
frankly, I think we have had a sufficient amount of time. We have had 
more days of hearings than the O.J. Simpson trial. The fact is, this 
has gone on endlessly.
  The people in California, and I cannot speak for the people of 
Connecticut or the people from Maryland or the people from New York, 
but I can say those who came to see me in this 2-week break, not one 
said, ``Senator, the one thing I want you to do when you go back is 
hold more hearings on Whitewater.'' Not one person. No Republican came 
up and told me that. They never even mentioned it. They did say, ``Go 
back and get the job done. Balance the budget. Pass a budget. Do not 
cut Medicare. Take care of education. Go after the situation in our 
exports where we have problems with nations who are not treating us 
fairly.''
  I sit on the Banking Committee and we have that jurisdiction. We have 
not done a thing about the issues that will make life better for the 
people of this country. It is Whitewater, Whitewater, Whitewater. What 
do the people think of it? I tell you what they think of it, they think 
it is a waste of time. They think it is a waste of time. We have a 
special counsel who has no limit on what he can spend going after the 
truth on Whitewater. There is no statute of limitations. We had little 
discussion about that earlier in relation to another bill. This special 
prosecutor has the world at his fingertips, and yet we have to call up 
the same felons, the same felons that are spewing forth things against 
our President, we are going to bring them into the hallowed Halls of 
the Senate of the United States.
  People are smart. The American people get it. This Congress has a bad 
reputation among the people. They do not think this Congress is doing 
its job. No wonder. No wonder. So there are a lot of accolades about 
how great it is that we reached an agreement on this. I say, good, I am 
glad, because the alternative was having this in the Banking Committee 
where we would get nothing else done, and waste the time of the Banking 
Committee.
  I have a situation in California where we have a great industry which 
is the leader in CD's and laser disks. We are losing billions of 
dollars a year because of China piracy. What are we doing about it in 
the Banking Committee? Zero--no time. No time. I was encouraged when 
our chairman said that he agreed with me on this issue, and, yes, he 
will get that done. Well, that is good. I do not know how we will do it 
all, but my view has always been as long as there are allegations made 
on this floor that they have not unturned every stone, that I would 
vote to continue this, because the last thing I want is for people to 
think we are not willing to look.
  Yes, I would have voted for this, but I have to say I hope we are 
better in this phase than we have been before, because there were days 
when we were supposed to have hearings and no one showed up. I am here, 
and I know there is a lot of comity on the floor today and everybody is 
thrilled. I am not so thrilled. Yes, I will vote for it, but I think it 
is a waste of time. It is political. Everyone in the country knows it 
is political. They are smart. They know the special prosecutor is out 
there, and they see Members of the Senate act like prosecutors and 
staff sitting there like that is their job. If they want to be 
prosecutors, God bless them, be prosecutors. Do not be a U.S. Senator, 
and do not come to work for U.S. Senators, because we have other things 
to do.
  What we have to do is make life better for the people. It is 
embarrassing. It is embarrassing to me that I sit on one of the best 
committees in the U.S. Senate, and this is what we are going to be 
doing. I am glad we have an end date of June. We can wrap it up and do 
our work. I just hope we get back to the business of making life better 
for the people of our great Nation, because they deserve our attention. 
There is economic insecurity out there. There are things we can do in 
the Banking Committee to get to those issues. I stand ready to work in 
a bipartisan way to get to those issues and to move these hearings 
along.
  I also have to say just because I am straight from the shoulder about 
this, that when we have witnesses up there who are convicted felons, I 
hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not be surprised 
if I get a little tough in my questions. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will not delay the Senate. I know that 
Members would like to get back to the Terrorism Prevention Act.
  I would like the record to reflect that I did vote against the 
establishment of the special committee to investigate Whitewater. I 
think it was not a proper function for the Senate this election year. I 
certainly would like the Record to reflect had there been a rollcall 
vote on this resolution extending the jurisdiction of that special 
committee, I would also vote against this.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me. I 
will speak only a very few moments. I know we want to get on with the 
business of the Senate.
  I want to first commend my colleague, Senator Sarbanes, the ranking 
member of the committee, and I want to commend the chairman of the 
committee for ultimately working out an agreement. Maybe this can be a 
solution by which we might proceed in an orderly way to end the quest 
to find facts, information, and to educate ourselves on the so-called 
issue of Whitewater.
  Mr. President, if we had brought this issue to a vote, like my friend 
from New Mexico, I probably would have voted ``no''. I probably would 
have voted ``no'' on this resolution, Mr. President, simply because I 
think that there are enough forces out there occupying the time and 
resources of our Government and our judicial system to amply comply 
with the intent of this overall investigation.
  These hearings have already gone, Mr. President, as my friend from 
California has stated, longer than the O.J. Simpson trial. Longer, I 
think, in many instances that the Iran-Contra trial. These were 
national issues of great importance. This is an issue of some 
importance, but it is of importance only because it affects what we 
know as a Whitewater issue. It relates to a matter that took place 12 
or 15 years ago in the State of Arkansas. How important is it as it 
relates to the other issues that we have to defend and debate and 
concern ourselves with at this time? That is the question.
  I do not feel that the Senate, nor this committee, should further 
utilize the resources of our Government to continue bringing witnesses 
up here from the State of Arkansas, week after week, day after day, and 
month after month, simply because it is a politically motivated 
endeavor. Mr. President, that is what it is. It is a politically 
motivated endeavor.
  Yesterday, the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee or the 
Whitewater Committee, if you might

[[Page S3453]]

call it that, issued a press release in which he basically said if he 
did not get his way, if he did not have his way and if the Senate did 
not allow the Whitewater committee to continue--then he would use the 
Banking Committee to usurp the powers of the Whitewater Committee. He 
was then going to seek the authority to have the opportunity to 
investigate and to subpoena all financial records of every financial 
institution in the State of Arkansas. from January 1978 until January 
20, 1993, when Governor Clinton became President Clinton.

  Mr. President, had that occurred--and I am glad it did not--and had 
the Banking Committee singled out one State, I was going to attempt to 
amend that resolution, if it was in the form of a resolution, and say, 
wait a minute, let us not just apply this to one State, Arkansas. Do 
not let this be the first time that a committee of the U.S. Senate has 
declared war on one of the States in this Union. Let us make it apply 
to New York, to all the banks and all the banking institutions, to Wall 
Street, and to the stock exchange. That has not been the prettiest 
picture for the last 15 to 18 years. Let us investigate them. Let us 
extend this authority there and see how far that resolution would have 
gotten.
  Well, Mr. President, of course, I am using a little bit of 
exaggeration. But I want to state that, for 15 years, had the Banking 
Committee had that authority to subpoena any and all records and any 
and all documents from all financial institutions in our State, it 
would have been a matter, I think, of egregious overreach of this body 
and, certainly, of the U.S. Government.
  Mr. President, further, I would like to state that--and I hope the 
Chair will pay close attention to this, as the distinguished Senator 
always does--we have recently asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
to do a little workup of the amount of resources that it has committed 
to the Whitewater issue. I was astounded and shocked when I found out 
what the five major ongoing investigations by the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation are right now. One is Oklahoma City, which takes 
priority. That is where most of the resources have been expended. No. 
2, the Unabomber. Well, it has paid off because we may have caught the 
Unabomber. That is a lot of resources, and that is a proper use of the 
FBI. The third is another bank scandal. I can supply what State that is 
in for the Record. Evidently, a lot of FBI resources are being 
allocated to that particular bank scandal. But the fourth in priority 
of all the investigations where the FBI is allocating its major 
resources is--you guessed it--Whitewater. It even surpasses the 
commitment that we have made to the World Trade Center bombing by 
terrorists some 2 or 3 years ago. Whitewater has surpassed the use of 
FBI personnel and financial resources, and we have gone above and 
beyond those funds expended and agents expended to deal with the World 
Trade Center bombing of 2 or 3 years ago.
  That is unbelievably outrageous. In fact, some $11 million to $12 
million of FBI resources have been expended just on Whitewater--$11 
million to $12 million of FBI personnel, including 41 agents and 81 
support personnel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation are looking at 
Whitewater events that happened 10, 12, 15 years ago.
  Mr. President, it is time, as other speakers have said, to really get 
our priorities right. I am hopeful that this committee will continue, 
will move expeditiously, will come to a conclusion, write its report, 
throw that report at the Congress, and then let us let the people 
decide what we should do about it.
  Finally, I want to say that this morning in the New York Times, 
finally--finally--under an editorial entitled ``Replacing Kenneth 
Starr,'' who is basically the special counsel--or what I call the 
``special prosecutor'' in the Whitewater matter down in Little Rock. 
The New York Times has asked for Mr. Starr to be replaced. Why have 
they asked for Mr. Starr to be replaced, Mr. President? Well, it is 
very simple. It is because Mr. Starr has conflicts of interest, which 
are precluding him from presenting a fair image of investigation and of 
factfinding in the Whitewater matter. Here is the man who is charged 
with prosecuting and investigating this issue. But here also is the man 
who has the burden of bearing these conflicts of interest. The New York 
Times points out this morning in its editorial ``Replacing Kenneth 
Starr,'' that he is making speeches all over the country, representing 
controversial clients before the U.S. Supreme Court, representing, 
perhaps, the national Republican Party, and other groups that have 
direct conflicts of interest with the fair-mindedness that this hearing 
and process has to portray.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this editorial, 
``Replacing Kenneth Starr,'' appearing this morning in the New York 
Times, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Apr. 17, 1996]

                        Replacing Kenneth Starr

       With a Presidential election only six months away, the 
     public needs to have confidence in the fairness, good 
     judgment and unselfish civic purpose of the independent 
     counsel on Whitewater. It is also important that the months 
     of work by a large, expensive staff not be squandered. After 
     listening to Kenneth Starr's narrow, legalistic reasons for 
     his continued representation of wealthy, politically active 
     clients while serving as independent counsel, we have 
     concluded that Mr. Starr is not the person to deliver on 
     those two goals. It is time for him to step aside and let the 
     investigation go forward under a replacement from the senior 
     staff.
       Mr. Starr seems defiantly blind to his appearance problems 
     and indifferent to the special obligation he owes to the 
     American people. He and his ethics adviser, Sam Dash, keep 
     pointing out that most of the 16 other people appointed under 
     the independent counsel law have continued to work on private 
     cases. They conveniently ignore the fact that Mr. Starr is 
     one of only two such counsels to be given the task of 
     investigating a sitting President.
       ``The independent counsel was never expected to become a 
     full-time employee of the Government and leave his or her law 
     firm,'' Mr. Starr told the Federal Bar Association in a 
     haughty speech last week. That could be because never before 
     has a lawyer assigned to investigate high government 
     officials maintained such a conspicuously fast-paced and 
     politically freighted private practice while assuming a major 
     national responsibility.
       The cumulative weight of Mr. Starr's conflicts have become 
     so heavy that Mr. Dash, the top lawyer for the old Senate 
     Watergate committee, who is paid $3,200 a week to advise Mr. 
     Starr, defends only the formal legality of Mr. Starr's 
     lucrative moonlighting. The law allows the court-appointed 
     prosecutor to have an outside law practice, but Mr. Dash told 
     Jane Mayer of The New Yorker that he would prefer that Mr. 
     Starr serve full time. What the independent counsel is doing 
     is proper, Mr. Dash argued later, but reasonable people may 
     believe ``there's an odor.''
       Mr. Dash is right about the odor, but wrong about the 
     propriety. The independent counsel law was enacted so the 
     public could be assured that the President would not sway 
     Justice Department officials who work for him. But if the 
     counsel refuses to divest himself of his own political and 
     financial baggage, he erases the gain in public confidence 
     that his appointment is expected to solidify.
       This page has steadily advocated the continuation of the 
     Whitewater investigation in the belief that the public has 
     the right to know the full facts about the Clinton's business 
     dealings and related matters. But at the very outset, we 
     asked Mr. Starr to step aside because his entanglement with 
     conservative judges cast a shadow over his objectivity. When 
     that did not happen, we urged him to take a leave from his 
     law firm and appoint a deputy to oversee areas of the 
     investigation where he had a clear conflict of interest.
       But the number of those conflicts--involving big tobacco, 
     conservative foundations, the Resolution Trust Corporation, 
     the International Paper Company--has grown so great that 
     voters are bound to be confused about the integrity of Mr. 
     Starr's decision on whether to prosecute the Clintons and 
     their close associates.
       There was a time when Mr. Starr could have ameliorated such 
     doubt with openness and a sensitivity to his obligation to 
     the American people. That time is past. He needs to honor the 
     work of his staff and the investment of the taxpayers by 
     stepping down.

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, also, let me state that in this New Yorker 
magazine, dated April 22, I believe--I do not have my glasses with me--
there is a splendid article entitled ``How Independent Is the 
Counsel,'' once again, talking about the conflicts, talking about the 
image that this man who is burdened with these conflicts presents as he 
is attempting to portray that he is fair-minded, objective, and 
impartial in finding all the facts.
  It is time, Mr. President, that, once again, we sort of set this ship 
straight, if I might say that. It is time that we move forward with a 
fair determination of the facts and finding of the

[[Page S3454]]

facts. I hope the committee will proceed expeditiously. But had I had 
the opportunity to vote, if it were a matter before this body that 
required a yes or no vote, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. HATCH. What is the regular order, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The conference report on S. 735 is the order 
of business.
  Mr. HATCH. Soon we will proceed on that. But while we are waiting for 
Senator Biden to come, I want to say that I have sat on the Whitewater 
committee. I have to say I think it has been conducted very fairly. 
Senator D'Amato has bent over backward to do it fairly. I know our 
counsel has done a fair and decent job. In fact, I have never seen two 
better counsel than the two we have on both the minority and majority 
sides on the Whitewater matter.
  I also have to say that I hope it is resolved in favor of the 
President and First Lady. But there are a lot of things that are very 
much up in the air, matters over which we have a great deal of concern. 
You cannot just sweep them under the rug because it has taken time. 
There have been obfuscation, delays, and there have been deliberate 
refusals to give documents, and documents have suddenly appeared. These 
types of things do not ordinarily happen. It has been filled with all 
kinds of incidents and occurrences that literally would cause anybody 
to say, ``What is going on here? If there is nothing wrong, why all 
these problems?'' Personally, it is bothering me.
  I have to say that I am glad we are getting this on the way to a 
resolution. I hope we can expedite it and do it in a fair and proper 
way, and get it over with one way or the other. I intend to do what I 
can to insist on doing that.
  With that, I would like to go to the regular order, and I yield to 
Senator Biden.

                          ____________________