[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.
____________________