[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 59 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4643-S4646]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               TRAVELGATE

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I read a story in the Washington 
Times that ought to absolutely outrage every Member of this body. It 
should also outrage the American people. The article is entitled 
``Democrats Stymie Effort to Pay Travelgate Legal Fees.'' It is written 
by Mr. Paul Bedard.
  The story is about how Democrat Senators are secretly trying to pull 
the plug on a Republican bill to pay legal fees for this person. The 
bill would help undo some of the damage that the Clinton White House 
perpetrated against seven innocent employees of the White House travel 
office. Mr. Billy Dale was the head of that office. He is the most 
prominent of the seven and the most harassed by the White House. The 
bill would restore only a small part of the economic damage done to 
these citizens and their families. It would simply pay their legal 
fees. It would do little or nothing to restore their reputations, their 
dignity, their psychological trauma, or their faith in their 
Government, especially in this White House.
  Now, to make matters worse, Mr. President, the Democrats want to take

[[Page S4644]]

away their legal fees, too. This, of course, is adding insult to 
injury. By their putting a stop to this bill, the Democrats would 
deprive these seven of legal fees, even after it has been shown that 
the seven should not have been targets of the Clintons in the first 
place.
  These seven innocent--let me repeat, innocent--workers were given 
their walking papers so a Clinton family member and a rich Hollywood 
crony and a Clinton contributor could reap spoils for themselves. The 
seven became unjust targets of the enormous power of the Federal 
Government. Their rights were trampled all over.
  Why should our Democrat colleagues be trying to secretly kill the 
legal fees for the Travelgate seven? Here is what Mr. Bedard of the 
Washington Times says: ``A Senate leadership official said Democrats 
hope to kill the aid for Mr. Dale in order to save the President the 
embarrassment of having to sign it.''
  Mr. President, that is no justification whatever. If that is the 
justification, then that explains why this effort is being done in the 
secrecy of the back room. First, the President fails to take 
responsibility for his actions. He points the finger and blames the 
firings of the Travelgate seven on others. Now it appears that his 
lieutenants do his bidding to stop the legal fee bill, once again 
failing to take responsibility as a President of the United States for 
his own actions.
  This is precisely why I have often repeated on this floor my 
observation that there is an absence of moral leadership coming from 
this White House. If there was ever an appropriate illustration of what 
I am talking about, this clandestine maneuvering on the Travelgate bill 
is it. If all of this is true, these Senators are doing the President 
of the United States a disservice, as well as Mr. Dale, and the 
President would best show some leadership by standing up and saying he 
wants no part of this effort to harass these citizens any longer.
  In the Travelgate case, the President and First Lady already have 
been accused of coverup, damage control, stonewalling, a failure of 
moral leadership, cronyism, nepotism and, most importantly, a breach of 
public trust.
  Why should these Senators, whom I assume are allies of the President, 
want to add to this list of accusations legislative as well?
  It is all right for the President of the United States to create a 
fund and have his own legal fees paid by lobbyists, cronies, and high 
rollers. But if the average ``Joe Citizen'' wants and deserves to be 
made whole in the face of Federal harassment, he gets, as Mr. Dale has 
found, the plug pulled on him secretly behind closed doors.
  I submit that the harassment of Billy Dale by the Democrats 
continues. First, it was the Clinton White House doing it to Mr. Dale. 
Then it was the FBI and the Federal prosecutors. Now it is friends of 
the President in the U.S. Senate. It seems like everybody in Government 
is in a league together to frustrate an attempt to help make Mr. Dale 
whole--at least economically. There is no way you are going to help him 
with all these other problems he has.
  I will urge our leaders--meaning our Republican leaders in this 
body--to lift up this rock to the light of day and see who scurries 
away from the refuge of secrecy, closed doors, and the dark. I will 
urge that a full public debate be allowed on this bill, followed by a 
recorded vote instead of a voice vote. Let those who are doing their 
work behind the scenes face the American people and make their case in 
public.
  This is a fairly outrageous position for anybody to take, 
particularly since the President is trying to get his legal bills paid 
by donations from his friends. Now, this is outrageous. I have not seen 
a whole lot like it in the 15 years I have been here. This is not a 
debate about corporate or trade associations or labor organizations or 
large grassroots organizations; this is a debate about doing justice 
for just one person--a man who was wrongly accused and harassed by our 
Federal Government.
  Mr. President, in a sense, this is a debate about our moral leaders 
in the White House. Mr. Dale and his family have been left financially, 
emotionally, and psychologically drained. Since a Federal jury 
acquitted Mr. Dale after all of 2 hours of deliberations, how can 
anyone in this body defend such action? One thing is for sure: I do not 
think the people will want to defend such action in public. In that, I 
have much confidence.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Times, May 2, 1993]

        Democrats Stymie Effort to Pay ``Travelgate'' Legal Fees

                            (By Paul Bedard)

       Senate Democrats have ganged up in secret to block 
     legislation that would pay off ``Travelgate'' figure Billy R. 
     Dale's $500,000 legal bill in an apparent effort to shield 
     the president from further embarrassment in the scandal.
       Senate leadership sources said yesterday that Sen. David 
     Pryor of Arkansas, a close ally of the president, put a 
     confidential ``hold'' on the bill, blocking it from being 
     considered by the Senate.
       They said Mr. Pryor, who is retiring this year, then passed 
     the hold to other Democrats, and they have kept the 
     legislation from being considered for passage in a voice 
     vote.
       Pryor spokesman Beau Morrison denied that the senator now 
     has a hold on the bill, adding that a senator's privilege to 
     put a hold on legislation is supposed to be confidential.
       Senate protocol allows any member to place a confidential 
     hold on any legislation for any reason. Democratic senators 
     recently tried to kill that rule.
       ``Pryor did put a hold on it, and we expect another 
     Democrat to drop one on it now that you have caught wind of 
     it,'' a Republican source said.
       Mr. Dale accumulated legal bills of $500,000 in defending 
     himself against two counts of embezzlement that followed his 
     surprise ouster as White House travel office director May 19, 
     1993. A U.S. District Court jury took two hours to acquit him 
     after a three-week trail.
       The firings of Mr. Dale and his six aides sparked the 
     Travelgate scandal.
       A House panel is investigating a former senior White House 
     aide's accusation that first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton 
     demanded the firings in order to make room for Clinton 
     associates. Mrs. Clinton has denied the charge.
       Republicans upset with Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole's 
     refusal to force the issue on the Senate floor yesterday 
     urged the likely GOP presidential nominee to bring the 
     legislation to a vote.
       ``Please do whatever you can to bring this bill to the 
     floor, thus allowing those opponents the opportunity to make 
     their arguments in public, in the light of day,'' Sens. 
     Christopher S. Bond, Missouri Republican, and Richard C. 
     Shelby, Alabama Republican, wrote to Mr. Dole in a letter 
     provided to The Washington Times.
       ``The careers of seven long-time employees were put in 
     jeopardy, their finances devastated and their reputation 
     forever stained. And now a simple bill designated to attempt 
     to right one of the wrongs perpetrated against these seven 
     employees is being held up by at least one Democrat 
     senator,'' they wrote.
       ``We believe the `Travel Office Seven' has suffered 
     enough--this bipartisan, widely supported bill should be 
     allowed to pass.''
       The House in March voted 350-43 to pay Mr. Dale's bills. 
     Swift Senate action was promised--along with presidential 
     approval--but the bill was stopped dead by Democratic 
     opposition.
       The House and Senate previously approved a $150,000 bill to 
     help cover the legal bills of the other travel office 
     workers.
       Unless Mr. Dole pushes the bill Republicans expect the hold 
     ``to continue until we begin putting pressure on the 
     Democrats,'' Senate leadership official said ``We should be 
     going to the floor every day to force and embarrass the 
     Democrats, but we aren't there yet.''
       The official said Senate Democrats hope to kill the aid for 
     Mr. Dale in order to save the president the embarrassment of 
     having to sign it. Mr. Clinton has said he will sign it, but 
     he isn't pushing Democrats to let the bill go.

  Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is 
recognized.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, if I might, I would like, through the 
Chair, to request my good friend from Iowa to stand by for a few 
moments, because I would very much like to know some of the points that 
he raised so that I might be able to respond. I say that in great 
respect to him. When I saw him take the floor and mention the 
Travelgate issue, I literally ran from my office in the Russell 
Building to be here so that I may attempt to respond.
  First, I do not know if the Senator from Iowa, in any way, has 
indicated or implied that a Member on this side of the aisle--
especially this Senator from Arkansas--or would have inferred that this 
Senator from Arkansas has had a hold on this particular bill, known as 
the Travelgate reimbursement bill for legal fees.

[[Page S4645]]

  In this morning's Washington Times, Mr. President----
  Mr. GRASSLEY. If the Senator will let me answer, and I will not take 
the floor.
  Mr. PRYOR. Sure.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I did not say anybody's name. However, 
the article I have put in the Record does have the name of the Senator 
from Arkansas in a headline. This was the basis for my comments. I did 
get unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.
  Mr. PRYOR. I do not object. I am very proud that my good friend is 
raising this point so that I can finally respond to it.
  The Washington Times indicated this morning that the Senator from 
Arkansas, myself, Senator Pryor, had a hold on this bill to repay all 
of the legal fees, some $500,000, which had been amassed by those 
people involved in the Travelgate episode.
  Mr. President, I want to state this: I do not have a hold on this 
bill. I have never placed a hold on a bill in my 18 years in the 
Senate. I will be here about another few months, and I will never place 
a hold on a bill, or a piece of legislation. I do not think that is a 
healthy way to conduct the business of the Senate. And I deeply 
resent--not the Senator from Iowa--but any insinuation by anyone from 
the media that the Senator from Arkansas has a hold on this bill. I do 
not have a hold. I have never talked to anybody about having a hold. I 
have never mentioned to the majority leader, to the minority leader, to 
the floor staff, to the Cloakroom, or anyone, that I want to stop this 
bill.
  In fact, Mr. President, I want to see this bill come to the floor. I 
wish it would come to the floor tonight. I wish we would vote on it 
tonight, because I am probably going to support it because I have an 
amendment I may want to add to this bill. This amendment relates to 
changing the implementation of the GATT treaty, so that a handful of 
drug companies will not continue taking advantage of the American 
consumer, the American taxpayer, in the sale of certain pharmaceutical 
drugs.
  I might use this bill as that vehicle, Mr. President, to offer that 
amendment so that we can correct this odious mistake that the Congress 
has made in carving out a special exemption and a special place for 
Glaxo, the manufacturer of Zantac, and other drug firms of the 
manufacturing nature, in the manufacture of drugs that are necessities 
of life for people. I was going to use this as a possible vehicle to 
make that change and to offer that amendment.
  There is another bill that I hope will come to the floor. The Senator 
from Iowa had worked for many years on something we called the 
taxpayers' bill of rights. I was going to see if there would be a way 
to offer my amendment on Glaxo and the GATT implementing legislation. I 
have been consulting with my colleague, Senator Brown of Colorado, and 
Senator Chafee of Rhode Island, to establish which vehicle would be 
best for us to use to get the maximum number of votes. If Travelgate 
was the one, that would be fine, or the taxpayers' bill of rights, that 
would be fine. Whatever the legislation, Mr. President, I was prepared 
to offer this amendment to correct this mistake Congress made, which 
allows extra profits of $5 million each day to one particular firm, 
which I think is unconscionable.
  I state to my friend, once again, I do not have a hold on this bill. 
Please insert the article. I will certainly not object. I thank the 
Senator for raising the point, because all day I have been asked by 
various members of the press if I actually had a hold on the bill. I do 
not. I see that my friend may be seeking recognition.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Will the Senator yield for rebuttal on my part?
  Mr. PRYOR. I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator very 
much for coming to the floor to make his remarks. I absolutely believe 
what the Senator says. I hope that the Senator will have an 
opportunity, maybe, to study what I said, because, as he said, he had 
to leave his office to come over here. I will be happy to discuss, 
either privately or on the floor of the Senate, any of the comments 
that I made. I did not name any Senator, albeit, the Senator's name 
could be implied from putting the article in the Record. But I did not 
accuse any Senator of putting a hold on it. People on this side of the 
aisle did inquire about whether or not there was a hold by somebody on 
your side of the aisle on the bill, and we were told there was a 
hold. We were not told who it was, but that there is a hold on the 
bill.

  So I want to take time to clarify that because the Senator from 
Arkansas asked me to, and I appreciate how he approaches this issue as 
well.
  I still would leave my comments, though, that we should get this bill 
passed. It is not going to restore the situation prior to the firing 
the way it was for Mr. Dale. But I think that this is something which 
will bring some justice to it and some equity to other situations in 
this town where people are getting their legal fees paid.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Iowa very much.
  I once again appreciate this opportunity to be able to come to the 
floor and attempt to clarify this situation which I think is somewhat 
of sync. If I might, before my friend and colleague leaves the floor, I 
am just going to take a very few moments before my colleague leaves.
  There seems to be sort of an insinuation in some of the media 
writings--in the Washington Times--that the White House, through 
Senator Pryor from Arkansas, being from the same State as the President 
and the First Lady, might be inclined to put a hold on this bill so as 
not to embarrass the White House, or whatever.
  Mr. President, let me state in the presence of my colleague, the 
Senator from Iowa, that I have never talked to anyone in the White 
House about this bill. Never, ever have I talked to anyone in the White 
House about this bill. I do not think they have any idea whether there 
is a hold on this bill or not. In fact, I think I have seen in the 
press, or I have heard somewhere, that the President has indicated that 
he would probably sign this bill. I do not know what the President's 
position on this bill is.
  But, if I may, I am so appreciative of the Senator remaining to let 
me tell him how this might have started. This is a very small body, and 
we all know each other. I went the other evening to one of Senator 
Grassley's colleagues, Mr. President, on the other side of the aisle, 
and I said, ``When is the Travelgate reimbursement for legal fees bill 
coming?'' They said, ``Well, we are not sure.'' I said, ``I may have an 
amendment to the bill.'' I may amend it either with the GATT 
implementation legislation to try to cure this terrible mistake we have 
made to allow all these windfall profits to occur for Glaxo and other 
companies, or I may have another amendment. I may offer an amendment to 
put some extra money in this bill as a contingency fund, a contingency 
fund to somehow begin to compensate and to give some protection, even a 
modest amount of protection, for those individuals who are being 
dragged up here to Washington, DC, time and again at their own expense 
incurring enormous back-breaking legal fees to appear before the 
Whitewater committee.

  Mr. President, these people are financially destitute. These are not 
Presidents and First Ladies necessarily. These are secretaries and file 
clerks who are having to answer a subpoena and bring records, bring 
themselves, pay for airplanes, and come up here and give opportunities 
to be grilled and interrogated by the Whitewater committee.
  Mr. President, I do not know if Mr. Dale's firing was right or not. I 
have not truly followed that case. I think the President probably had 
the right to fire him should he have wanted him fired. I do not know 
how that worked. But whether he did or whether he did not, that is 
irrelevant to the other issue.
  Do we need to start looking at a way to protect private citizens in 
the payment of their legal fees when they are not a target of an 
investigation, when they are not even truly a part of any problem that 
has given rise to an investigation when those individuals cannot pay 
their legal bills?
  Mr. President, when these people are first talked to about appearing 
before this committee or before Kenneth

[[Page S4646]]

Starr's grand jury in Arkansas or before a grand jury here, they do not 
know what is happening. They do not know if they need an attorney or 
not. They do not know in most cases whether they are a target of an 
investigation or not. They are having to produce mountains of 
information. They are having to produce file drawers full of documents. 
For many of those documents, they do not know where they are. But in 
most cases they are trying to comply in good faith and with good 
intentions.
  So, Mr. President, that may have been how this rumor started about 
the Senator from Arkansas putting a hold. I said that I might have an 
amendment. One amendment might be on the GATT Glaxo issue; one 
amendment might be to add additional funds so that we could cover those 
individuals who could not pay attorney's fees who are not targets of an 
investigation.
  I remember hearing the majority leader sometime back. I tell you, I 
think he was right. I remember him talking about someone who had been 
hauled--perhaps hauled or subpoenaed--before the Iran-Contra committee. 
I believe that was the case. The majority leader said then that what he 
was going to have to do is go out and try to get his reputation back.

  Those words rang in my ears, and they ring in my ears again as we 
continue dragging these people up from especially our State and where 
it is going to wreak financial devastation on some of these individuals 
who have had no part in creating this problem but were merely what you 
might call lower echelon public servants who are going to be 
financially destitute after all of this is over.
  Mr. President, I see the distinguished majority leader is here. I 
want to thank once again my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, for 
remaining, and he has had to leave the floor now.
  Seeing no other Senators seeking recognition, I yield the floor at 
this time.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________