[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 61 (Monday, May 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4717-S4723]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 WHITE HOUSE TRAVEL OFFICE LEGISLATION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of H.R. 2937, involving the 
reimbursement to the former White House Travel Office employees, which 
the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2937) for the reimbursement of attorney fees 
     and costs incurred by former employees of the White House 
     Travel Office with respect to the termination of their 
     employment in that Office on May 19, 1993.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Dole amendment No. 3952, in the nature of a substitute.
       Dole amendment No. 3953 (to amendment No. 3952), to provide 
     for an effective date for the settlement of certain claims 
     against the United States.
       Dole amendment No. 3954 (to amendment No. 3953), to provide 
     for an effective date for the settlement of certain claims 
     against the United States.
       Dole Motion to refer the bill to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary with instructions to report back forthwith.
       Dole amendment No. 3955 (to the instructions to the motion 
     to refer), to provide for an effective date for the 
     settlement of certain claims against the United States.
       Dole amendment No. 3956 (to amendment No. 3955), to provide 
     for an effective date for the settlement of certain claims 
     against the United States.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today we turn to H.R. 2937. This is a bill 
to provide for the legal expenses of Billy Dale and other former White 
House Travel Office employees.
  Mr. President, today I rise to urge my colleagues to support the 
pending legislation to reimburse the legal expenses incurred by Billy 
Dale and the other White House Travel Office employees who were 
summarily discharged from their jobs on May 19, 1993. This is a bill 
that I believe remedies the grave miscarriage of justice that resulted 
in the wrongful investigation and prosecution of Mr. Billy Dale and 
other former White House Travel Office employees.
  President Clinton has said that he supports reimbursement of legal 
fees for Mr. Dale. I take him at his word. I am counting on him to make 
sure that people on the other side do not delay this bill, that cloture 
will be invoked tomorrow. It is surprising to me, however, that we are 
here trying to move this simple measure that the President supports, 
that had overwhelming bipartisan support in the House, but that some of 
my Democratic friends continue to seek to derail.

  It is time to act on this measure and put to rest the years of 
unnecessary expense and inconvenience suffered by Mr. Billy Dale and 
his former colleagues of the White House Travel Office. To do anything 
less, in my opinion, would be to deny justice to those wrongfully 
prosecuted by the Government.
  The issue is simple: Mr. Dale served his country, at the pleasure of 
eight Presidents, as the director of the White House Travel Office. He 
faithfully served both Democratic and Republican Presidents. He 
provided years of service that involved the thankless task of ensuring 
that the national and international media were in a position to cover 
and report the movements of the President to the public. For that, Mr. 
Dale and the entire White House Travel Office staff were fired on May 
19, 1993, and fired in what really could be nothing less than a 
surreptitious manner.
  As if that humiliation were not enough, Mr. Dale was thereafter 
indicted and prosecuted for embezzlement. On December 1, 1995, after 
2\1/2\ years of being investigated by the FBI and IRS and incurring 
tremendous legal expenses, Mr. Dale was tried before a jury of his 
peers and, after fewer than 2 hours of deliberation, found not guilty 
of all charges.
  The travesty in this story is that the White House Travel Office 
employees simply got caught in the political crossfire of the new 
administration. They had served both Democratic and Republican 
Presidents, but found themselves in jobs that apparently were an 
impediment to the ambitious money-making schemes of some of the new 
President's friends.
  President Clinton certainly had the authority to dismiss the White 
House Travel Office staff without cause. I do not begrudge the 
President his right to control White House staff. But subsequent to the 
firings, the Clinton White House may have felt the need to justify

[[Page S4718]]

its actions, given the tremendous media interest in this dismissal. 
Unfortunately, in justifying its own actions, the White House ruined 
the reputations of Mr. Dale and his colleagues. The White House' 
actions went well beyond routine termination of jobs at the President's 
pleasure. What happened is simply unconscionable, and we have to right 
these wrongs.
  In May 1993, the Travel Office employees were fired and told to 
vacate the premises. In fact, two staff members learned of their 
termination on the nightly news. That is how this White House handled 
it. In an attempt to justify firing these loyal public servants, the 
White House met with and urged the FBI to investigate the Travel 
Office. Usually that is done solely by calling anything they think is 
wrong to the attention of the Justice Department, who then can, if it 
is deemed necessary, call in the FBI. That was not the case here. They 
actually tried to influence the FBI to get involved in what really was 
a political matter. They used allegations concocted by those who had a 
vested interest in running the office themselves. Curiously, the FBI 
helped craft the White House' press release about the firings.
  The accounting firm Peat Marwick was hired to do an audit of the 
office. The firm's report, however, did not substantiate the 
allegations of mismanagement asserted by the White House. The firm 
found only modest financial irregularities, which are certainly not the 
same thing as embezzlement.
  Now, this story would indeed be tragic enough if it ended here. But 
it does not. The Department of Justice then proceeded to indict Mr. 
Dale, seemingly without concern for the weakness of its case. The case 
was so weak that the citizens sitting on the jury who heard all the 
evidence exonerated Mr. Dale in fewer than 2 hours. For those who have 
tried a lot of lawsuits, it takes that long to organize the jury. This 
question of use of the Federal criminal justice system created a 
situation for Mr. Dale where he had to spend some $500,000, and even 
considered taking a plea, when he had committed no crime, just to end 
it--just to end this tremendous fiscal abuse of him and his family.

  Indeed, after the jury dismissed the allegations, someone leaked the 
existence of the plea negotiations to the public in an attempt to 
further discredit Mr. Dale's reputation. The Clinton administration 
just could not let it end with Mr. Dale's acquittal. It had to take one 
more swipe at Mr. Dale. Not only are plea negotiations a necessary part 
of our judicial system, they are intended to remain confidential and 
are not to be used against a criminal defendant. Mr. Dale likely 
considered a plea agreement because he was faced with a crushing 
financial problem and burden, an uncertain future, and wanted to put an 
end to a trial that had become too much of a strain to his family and 
reputation.
  No one should ever have to be put through this. No citizen of this 
country should be treated in this fashion. I have to say there have 
been a number of innocent citizens through the years who have had to 
make pleas just to get the Government off their back because the 
Government has a never-ending source of funds, where they, of course, 
can lose their whole lives and their whole life's work. In Mr. Dale's 
case, that is what was happening.
  Even so, he was maligned by these leaks after his acquittal. It has 
now been nearly 3 years since the termination of the White House Travel 
Office employees, and they are still in the unfair position of 
defending their reputations. It is time to close this chapter in their 
lives, and it is time to allow them to have their reputations back. I 
cannot, in good conscience, sit quiet when I believe an arrogant use of 
power has taken place. The power of the White House was used to 
victimize the innocent for a President's political gains. The targeting 
of dedicated public servants, apparently because they held positions 
coveted by political profiteers, demand an appropriate response. 
Although their muddied personal and smeared personal reputations may 
never be fully restored, it is only just that the Congress do what it 
can to rectify these wrongs.
  Accordingly, this bill will make Mr. Dale and the other former White 
House Travel Office employees whole, at least financially. It will 
never make up for what they have lost otherwise. But it will 
financially, by providing for attorney's fees and expenses related to 
the criminal investigation. This is the very least we can do. After 
all, we can do nothing to restore their reputations, their dignity, or 
their faith in this White House.

  Let me briefly explain to my colleagues what this bill does for the 
former White House Travel Office employees. This legislation provides 
for payment of the legal expenses incurred by Billy Dale, Barney 
Brasseaux, John Dreylinger, Ralph Maughan, John McSweeney, and Gary 
Wright in connection with the wrongful criminal investigation launched 
against them subsequent to their firings. Though Mr. Dale suffered the 
greatest financial losses, the remaining six employees collectively 
incurred approximately $200,000 in their own defense. These six 
innocent--let me repeat that, innocent--employees were unjustly 
dismissed so that rich White House cronies could snap up their jobs. 
While this bill does not provide for compensation of all expenses 
associated with the investigation into the Travel Office matters, such 
as costs incurred while appearing before Congress, it will provide for 
attorney's fees and costs that resulted from defending themselves 
against criminal investigations.
  I thank my colleagues for considering this piece of legislation and, 
above all, the Members of the House for passing H.R. 2937 with 
overwhelming bipartisan support. This is an important and long overdue 
measure. I find it a great breach of trust with the American people 
that the awesome prosecutorial powers of the Federal Government will be 
brought to bear on innocent persons for political motives. Even the 
White House in hindsight recognized that justice in this matter needs 
to be done. Indeed, when White House spokesman McCurry stated, ``Yes, 
and he signed it,'' referring to President Clinton's intentions to sign 
this bill reimbursing Mr. Dale, this was our call to enact this 
measure. We should all keep this in mind when voting to pass this bill.
  I strongly urge support for the passage of this legislation.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Christina 
Rios, of my staff, be given privileges of the floor for the pendency of 
the debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. This is one of the most unjust things I have seen in all 
the time I have been here. It is just a shame that the awesome power of 
the White House could be utilized in this fashion. I am pleased that 
the President basically stands behind this bill and will not veto this 
bill. I am pleased he said he would support this bill. I hope our 
colleagues on the other side will support it, as I hope our colleagues 
on our side will support it.
  There is no reason in this world why we do not rectify this kind of 
wrong caused by the Federal Government. My only problem is I wonder how 
many other wrongs like this there are in our system today? I think by 
and large our system is as honest and good and decent as it can be, but 
occasionally we do find people who play politics with the law. You 
should never play politics with criminal laws. People's lives, 
reputations, their very inner psyches can be completely destroyed when 
put through these types of embarrassing, despicable approaches. I am 
very upset about it.
  I would like to see this passed without event and without a lot of 
screaming and shouting. It ought to be done in a dignified way. Every 
one of us in this body ought to be proud to do it and send this 
message, not only to this White House but future White Houses and 
future Justice Departments, that we will not tolerate this kind of 
action in the future. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I, as you know, have made some arguments 
here that this is a bill that everybody ought to be for. It is to right 
injustices that

[[Page S4719]]

were created by certain people at the White House which the President 
even acknowledges in the sense that he said he would support this 
legislation. He does support this legislation. He thinks an injustice 
was done, and he thinks that Billy Dale and the other former employees 
ought to be reimbursed their legal expenses. The President is behind 
this.
  This is not a partisan issue. But I just have been informed that the 
Democrats on the cloture vote tomorrow are going to vote against 
cloture on something this bipartisan. Not one of them is going to speak 
against it. I do not think anybody in this body can speak against this 
bill. But they are going to filibuster this bill because they cannot 
add the minimum wage to this bill, or they cannot add any number of 
other liberal wish lists to this bill.
  Talk about an unjust situation confounding an unjust situation. I 
cannot believe that my colleagues are going to do that on the other 
side. They ought to be the first to say, get this bill through and do 
it and right this wrong.
  When I was a Democrat we were concerned about people's feelings. We 
were concerned about compassion. We were concerned about injustice. We 
would move heaven and Earth to try to do something about it. But that 
is one reason I left the party. Politics is more important than 
anything else, I guess.
  I am calling on my colleagues on the other side to do something about 
this. This is a wrong that ought to be righted. This man has been 
mistreated, and so have his colleagues. His reputation has been smeared 
and besmirched. And everybody in this body knows it, and everybody in 
the other body. The other body acted with dispatch and reason and 
dignity and in a bipartisan way and passed this legislation. We are 
going to correct the legislation with Senate legislation and send it 
back. And it will pass overwhelmingly over there. And if we play a two-
bit game of not invoking cloture tomorrow I think that is pathetic.
  I challenge my colleagues to wake up and quit playing politics with 
stuff like this. There is a place and a time to filibuster. There is a 
place and a time to bring up the minimum wage. This is not one of them. 
I would be ashamed not to see this bill just pass right through 
especially since nobody over there is going to speak against it, or if 
they are I would like to hear what they have to say because I am 
prepared to rebut anything they say. And I mean I am really prepared. 
And they better expect a rough time if somebody came on this floor and 
said that Billy Dale should not be reimbursed.
  Where is the compassion the Democrats say they have? Where is the 
fairness? Where is the care for somebody who has been besmirched, and 
everybody admits it, who had to go through 2\1/2\ years of being 
brutalized in a full-fledged criminal trial where it got so bad and his 
expenses were so high and his family was going down the drain that the 
fellow was ready to even take a guilty plea or a plea to a minor 
offense in order to get the doggone ordeal over, which happens from 
time to time to innocent people. Fortunately, it went to the jury, and 
in this country, having tried hundreds of jury cases, hundreds of them, 
I have to tell you, I believe in that jury system.
  After the O.J. Simpson vote, I was interrogated on that, and I said I 
will go with the jury. I may have my own opinions, but I am going to go 
with the jury. In this case there is no question about it, and 
everybody pretty much admits it.
  If we are going to play games with this type of stuff--I do not mind 
my friends on the other side finding fault and hustling against 
legislation they despise or think is wrong. I do mind it on this 
legislation.
  Let me tell you something. There are two sides to the minimum wage. 
There are two sides to abortion. There are two sides to all these buzz 
issues. There are not two sides to this issue. There is one side. And I 
do not know anybody who could rebut it or who would have the temerity 
to come out here and try to rebut it.
  So I think it is time to quit playing games with something like this.
  Surely, the tree was tied up. I was not here, but it was tied up 
because we did not want any games played on something that will right 
the injustices of the past like this bill does.
  I am calling on my colleagues on the other side to give some 
consideration to not just me as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
who has tried to work with them in so many ways, but to their own 
President who said he supports this legislation and get it over with. 
It is to their advantage to get it over with rather than have to beat 
this to death over the next few days. I do not want to stand here and 
just keep pointing out the White House deficiencies on it. I wish to 
right this wrong, get it over with and then not talk about it anymore.

  So I am calling on my friends on the other side to give some 
consideration to the work that some of us are doing. I know they feel 
deeply about the minimum wage. Some on our side feel deeply on the 
other side, and there is going to be a battle on minimum wage sooner or 
later around here. This is just not the right vehicle to bring the 
complaint about, have someone to bring up their special amendments on 
this. I think this is the time to do what is right.
  If the President said he opposed it, OK, I can accept it. But I am 
calling on the President of the United States to get with it as my 
friend and the friend of every Democrat over here and to talk to our 
colleagues on the other side and to say look, fellows, men and women on 
the Democratic side of the floor, this is something that has to be done 
and it should not be delayed and it ought to be done now.
  I am calling on the President of the United States to see that this 
gets done. I expect to do my very best to get it done, and I hope this 
rumor that I am hearing is not true. If it is, I have to say that the 
comity in this body is just breaking down. I do not want to see that 
happen because there are a few of us who want to see things resolved. A 
few of us want to resolve some of these problems. Where we have head-
butting things where both sides feel very deeply, that is another 
matter. But on most matters around here we will resolve them, and this 
matter should not even be in question.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I heard the statement of the 
distinguished Senator from Utah, and I did not even have my television 
monitor on.
  I wish to begin in my response in agreement with what the Senator has 
just articulated. I believe as he believes, and there is no one who 
cares more deeply about comity in this body than does the distinguished 
Senator from Utah--about the need for comity, about the need for ways 
in which to resolve our differences in a reasonable way, in a 
bipartisan or nonpartisan way, and that ought to extend to legislation 
that may divide us as well. As he has indicated, this bill does not 
divide us. I do not know that there will be a vote against this 
particular piece of legislation when we get to that point.

  I think the Senator from Utah understandably underestimates the 
extraordinary frustration that Democrats are feeling given the current 
circumstances. We were told that the so-called Presidio bill was not 
the bill with which to offer the minimum wage amendment, and it was 
dropped. We were told then that the term limits bill was not the bill 
with which to offer the minimum wage amendment, and it was dropped. We 
were told that the immigration bill was not the bill with which to 
offer the minimum wage amendment, and again it was dropped.
  On bill after bill after bill after bill after bill, the Republicans 
have said this is not the bill, this is not the legislation, and in 
fact in most cases, whether it was the Presidio legislation or 
immigration, in many of those cases we then voted for cloture in an 
effort to move this process along in the name of comity, in the name of 
trying to resolve the pending issue because, as the distinguished 
Senator from Utah said, we ought to be able to do that.
  And we have also said, look, we will agree to a time certain. We will 
agree not only to a time certain with regard to how much time is 
actually devoted to the debate on minimum wage, we will take a half 
hour and a vote; we will do it this afternoon, tonight, tomorrow. If 
that cannot be done as part of an amendment to a bill, we will take it 
standing alone any time in the next

[[Page S4720]]

few weeks. Tell us when. And that too has been denied us.
  So, Mr. President, I have to ask, what does a guy do? How do you 
resolve this with comity? How do you resolve this in a way to try as 
best we can to work through these issues and yet be sure that we as 
Democrats are given an opportunity to address a very important issue?
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. DASCHLE. When I finish, I will be happy to yield. I would be more 
than pleased to enter into a dialog with my colleague from Utah but let 
me just finish some thoughts here.
  I am disappointed, frankly, after all these weeks and with all of 
these good-faith efforts made, as amendments have come up, as bills 
have been considered, that we have not been able to resolve this 
matter. I do not know how much longer it will take, but I do know this. 
It appears more and more that many of our Republican colleagues 
secretly desire to be in the House of Representatives. I would urge 
them to run for the House of Representatives if that is their desire. 
If they want the luxury of eliminating the opportunity for the minority 
to offer amendments, if they want the luxury of saying we are not going 
to have a debate about an issue that we do not want to debate, then run 
for the House. I still think there may be some seats open this year. 
They could try it even this year. My heavens, if you want to be in the 
Senate, if you want all the opportunities that the Senate provides us 
for good, unlimited, open debate, then let us not act like the House of 
Representatives. Let us not foreclose every single option that Senators 
are supposed to have, to be able to consider and vote, consider 
amendments and consider issues in a bona fide way, trying to work 
through our differences. That is what this is all about.

  But to be shut off, bill after bill after bill after bill, and to be 
told now this is not the bill either, in spite of the fact that we have 
unanimity on it, I ask the President, what should we do? We have no 
choice, Mr. President. We have no choice but to make our colleagues 
understand that this is the U.S. Senate and in the U.S. Senate you 
ought to be given opportunities.
  I have a list here. I do not know, I do not think I will go through 
them because it really does not serve any useful purpose, but I can 
give you a list of Domenici amendments, Helms amendments, McCain 
amendments, Roth amendments, Gramm amendments, Hatch amendments--you 
name it. We have amendments with just about every Republican name on 
them that were not relevant to a bill in past years, in past 
Congresses, offered on that side and not precluded by the Democratic 
majority at the time, because they thought it was important. They 
thought it was important.
  So here we are. The roles are reversed. We are the minority. Now we 
are supposed to offer amendments in those situations where we are not 
able to get a bill to the floor, and what happens? It is becoming a 
pattern. What happens is a bill is presented to the Senate floor and 
the tree is filled. There are so many leaves on this tree it looks like 
a forest in this place. I must tell you, it gets frustrating when we 
are not given the same opportunity we gave the minority when we were in 
the majority.
  I am sorry the Senator from Utah is frustrated. He is beginning to 
sense a little of the frustration we feel on our side. This minimum 
wage vote will happen. It is just too bad that it has not happened 
already. There will be other votes that may not be comfortable votes. 
But, my heavens, this is the U.S. Senate, and we ought to have an 
opportunity to debate them, vote them, have our differences and work 
through them. We ought to allow debates to take place.
  Indeed, let me end where I began and where the Senator from Utah 
ended: Let there be comity. Let there be a way in which to resolve 
these matters in a good-faith manner. I am prepared to do that. I know 
he is prepared to do that. The sooner it happens the better.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am prepared to do that. I believe in 
comity, and I have worked hard with my colleagues on the other side for 
comity. There have been innumerable bills where the Democrats have 
brought up not-relevant amendments throughout this process.

  What has happened here is they think they have a good political issue 
in the minimum wage. There will be a vote on the minimum wage before 
this year is out, there is no question. I do not blame the majority 
leader, who is acting no differently than the distinguished Senator 
from South Dakota when he was majority leader. I do not blame the 
majority leader for wanting to be able to schedule that at the 
appropriate time, not on every bill.
  Also, in my whole time in the Senate I do not remember a period of 
time like the last 2 years where almost everything is filibustered, 
where it takes a cloture vote to be able to end the debate. I think 
part of that came because our friends on the other side did not like 
the Contract With America. They did not want it to succeed. They have a 
right to fight against it, and they have a right to filibuster against 
these--but not everything. I have to admit, as somebody who has 
utilized the filibuster in the past and is known as somebody who can 
utilize it, I have used it very sparingly, only on major issues where 
there are clear-cut differences and where it is justified. But we have 
had a virtual slowdown on everything.
  Having said that, my colleagues on the other side have a right to do 
that. I am not going to take that right away. In fact, I would fight to 
my death for the filibuster rule. It is what makes us different from 
the House of Representatives. I might also add, I do not know a Senator 
who wants to go to the House of Representatives. I know a lot of 
Members of the House who would like to come here, especially Democrats. 
I have to say I guess Republicans have that desire as well.
  But to make a long story short, I do not believe that every bill has 
to be a bill where you cannot debate nonrelevant amendments, but this 
is one that passed 350 yeas to 43 nays in the House. It is a truly 
bipartisan bill, one that rights a terrific wrong that the White House 
basically admits was done, one of which the President said, ``I support 
it. It is the right thing to do.'' And which I think my friends on the 
other side ought to accept.
  Since nobody opposes this, why make this the cause celebre with 
regard to the minimum wage or any other special interest legislation 
that either side would like to bring up? Both sides have their peculiar 
special interests. We all know that. Both sides are sincere on these 
special desires. But this is one where the President said he would 
support it. This is one where 350 Members of the House, Democrats and 
Republicans, said they would support it, and only 43 were against it.

  This is one where I think 100 Senators will support it, at least I 
believe 100 Senators would, because I think every Senator here knows 
this is a terrific injustice. This bill is one that literally will not 
repair the reputations and the lives of those who went through this 
horrendous experience but will at least say to the public at large, and 
to them, that we in the Senate have some consideration for them, we 
have some compassion, that we care for them, that we are sorry for what 
happened, and what we can do, we will have done.
  I happen to have a great deal of friendship for my friend from South 
Dakota, the Democrat leader on the floor. There is no question that we 
are close friends. I cannot imagine, knowing him as well as I do, that 
he would allow his party, his side to be so crass as to filibuster this 
bill or to even require a cloture vote. This side would be just a voice 
vote, although I would like to see everybody stand up and vote 100 to 
zip to support this bill. I really believe--I am just counseling my 
colleague, whom I care for and he knows it--I really believe it is the 
right thing. We ought to get it over with, get it done, not spend a lot 
of time on it, let these people know Democrats and Republicans are 
together on this and not get involved in the quagmire of the minimum 
wage or anything else.
  I know that is going to come up. I know it has to come up. I know our 
friends in the minority have a right, have many rights, and there will 
be many tough votes, as the distinguished Senator says, for both sides. 
That is just the way it is, not only in a normal year but in a 
Presidential year in particular. But there are some things we

[[Page S4721]]

should do in a bipartisan way. We should not elevate it to the level of 
filibuster. We should not elevate it to the level of trying to get one 
or the other side's own personal preferences, especially when the 
President supports it.
  So I am calling on the President. I am calling on my colleagues on 
the other side. I am calling on my friend, the minority leader, to 
think this through and let us get this over with and do what is right 
and give these people a chance to walk away with at least some measure 
of dignity, even though they will never get their full reputations back 
in the eyes of some people. They have been scarred for life. The least 
we can do is try to do some plastic surgery here to make the scars a 
little less reprehensible to them. I think we all ought to have the 
compassion to do that.
  That is all I am asking for. I can live with whatever the minority 
wants to do. I caution the minority to not do what I have heard might 
be done and to really think this through and help me, as Judiciary 
Committee chairman, to get this matter over and done with; get it over 
for the White House and done. Once it is done, it will not be mentioned 
again, to my knowledge, on the floor. Just go from there. I just think 
it makes sense to do that.
  But I can live with anything. I have been around here a long time, 
and I have seen a lot of injustices before. But I think, if we delay 
this and play games with this bill, then we will play games with 
anything. I think this would be a tremendous, manifest injustice. That 
is my opinion, but I think it is shared by a wide variety of people on 
both sides of the aisle. I think really we ought to. There will be 
plenty of chances on other legislation, there will be plenty of chances 
to get the will of the minority done. I think, just work with the 
majority leader. I think it will get done because I guarantee there is 
going to be a bill on it, but it is going to satisfy both sides if it 
happens. It is not just going to be a one-sided bill.
  I think there will be an appropriate time to do that. I just believe, 
and I think most people who look at this fairly believe, this is not 
the bill you should be playing games with. Having said that, I respect 
my dear colleague, I still love and appreciate him, and I know he has a 
tough job. I know he has to handle his side. But I hope he will urge 
them to err on the side of caution, err on the side of doing what is 
right, err on the side of compassion, err on the side of rectifying 
wrongs that are clear-cut wrongs, err on the side of supporting the 
President.
  I think if you do that, you will win a lot of respect from some 
people who need to respect the minority as much as I do.
  I just wanted to say those things. I feel deeply about it. I hope my 
colleague can help me on this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Democratic leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, once again, I commend the distinguished 
Senator from Utah for appealing to reason and calm. I was thinking just 
as I was listening to his thoughtful remarks about how easy it would be 
to easily insert the minimum wage as he made an appeal for compassion, 
for doing what is right, for bipartisanship, for some appreciation of 
the magnitude of this problem as it affects those people who are 
directly going to be the beneficiaries, should the legislation pass.
  Indeed, one could make that case, that it is time for us to put aside 
our partisan differences and do what is right, recognize that it has 
been a long, long time--5 years--since we passed the minimum wage. The 
purchasing power is the lowest it has been now in 40 years.
  I would be willing to commit this afternoon to the chairman of the 
committee that we will vote for cloture, we will vote for final passage 
if he can work with me this afternoon to get a commitment for an up-or-
down vote on minimum wage immediately following the vote on this 
particular bill.
  If we can do that, we have exactly what the two Senators currently on 
the floor both want: Passage unanimously perhaps for this legislation, 
a bill to provide for the expenses of those who were victimized by the 
unfortunate circumstances in the travel office, and then send a clear 
message to more than 14 million Americans, most of whom are heads of 
household, that at long last we are going to give you a little more 
empowerment, we are going to give you a little more purchasing power. 
That is really what this is all about. This is an effort to try to find 
a way to address our mutual agendas, the majority's and the minority's.
  I agree with so much of what he said, but I will disagree with one 
point. He made the comment that he has never seen so many filibusters. 
Let me tell you, as one who served in the majority in the last few 
Congresses, this side in the 102d and the 103d Congress, our Republican 
colleagues were the Babe Ruths of filibusters. We are still in the 
minor leagues when it comes to filibusters, when it comes to shutting 
this place down.
  At one point, there were 60 filibusters pending in a Congress. It was 
unbelievable. There was nothing we could do. There was no legislation 
we could advance. And so we learned, hopefully well, and we will keep 
trying to learn better, we will keep trying to apply the lessons given 
us in past Congresses to be effective as Members of the minority, but 
we are not in that league yet. It is not even close.

  When we have insisted on a filibuster in large measure is when we 
have been prevented from being equal partners in the legislative 
process, when we have not been given an opportunity to offer 
amendments, to participate in the debate, to have our say, to have some 
balance here in striking this legislative comity that we do want.
  So I hope we can resolve it. I hope we can find a way to work through 
this. I hope that maybe this problem can be resolved in the next day. I 
would like to see in the next 24 hours a way to resolve it once and for 
all. It is within our grasp. We need to do it. The sooner we do it, the 
better.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have listened to my colleague, and I have 
to tell you that I remember the days when Majority Leader Mitchell was 
accusing us of filibustering all the time. He would call up a bill and 
then he would file cloture that very minute and accuse us of 
filibustering where there was no intention to filibuster whatsoever.
  Be that as it may, I think both sides have misused the filibuster 
from time to time. I think that is one of the points I made--it can be 
overused. I would still fight to my death to keep it alive, because it 
makes this the freest legislative body in the world and it is a great 
protection for the minority. I believe in that because I have been in 
the minority and I know how tough it is to be in the minority. I have 
no qualms about saying to the minority leader that it is a tool that he 
can use.
  I am just suggesting, citing the minimum wage to show compassion 
right now is not the same as citing the Billy Dale matter where 100 
people here know he and his colleagues were very badly treated. There 
is not the same bipartisan support for the minimum wage.
  There is a tremendous set of arguments against the minimum wage. I 
feel very deeply myself. For instance, it is ridiculous to tell people 
we have to give them a living wage when, in fact, people who are heads 
of families who are on the minimum wage have all kinds of other Federal 
benefits that are added to get them way above the approximately $8,000 
or $9,000 the minimum wage gives them, and we are paying for it as 
taxpayers. So it is not like they are bereft and limited only to 
whatever the minimum wage is.

  There is the other argument, and a whole raft of arguments, about 
loss of youth jobs for especially impoverished youth and uneducated 
youth; their opportunities for working are gone. We can go into that ad 
infinitum. There are legitimate arguments against it, and there is a, 
almost even, set of viewpoints concerning whether it should or should 
not be enacted.
  I can live with it one way or the other, to be honest with you, but I 
think it is a mistake to keep raising the minimum wage and raising all 
the other social benefits as well and, basically, decreasing youth jobs 
by the hundreds of thousands.
  Be that as it may, that is an argument. There is not the same 
bipartisan belief in the minimum wage that there is in the Billy Dale 
bill. There are

[[Page S4722]]

many vehicles whereby the Democrats can raise cane about it and can 
filibuster with regard to the minimum wage, but this should not be one 
of them. If the President was against the Billy Dale matter, I could 
understand it, but he is for it.
  If the distinguished minority leader was against rectifying the 
wrongs done to Billy Dale and his associates, then I could understand 
this, but he is for it. Are the other Democrats against the Billy Dale 
matter? Of course not. They are for it, and the reason they are is 
because it is right.
  I think there are things to raise filibusters about and things to 
vote against cloture on, and I certainly would fight to my death for 
the minority's right to do that. But there are also things that are 
right and wrong, and the wrongs against Billy Dale and the way he was 
treated by this White House ought to be rectified, and we could do it 
like that.
  We can do it by doing what we all know is right and not playing 
around with his reputation one more day. I find it unseemly that 
because of the difficulties over the minimum wage that our colleagues 
on the other side might consider not letting this bill pass and getting 
it over with and doing what is right. What really makes it unseemly, in 
my eyes, is that they had the majority for 2 years, between 1992 and 
1994. They had the majority. Where was the minimum wage then when they 
had the majority? Why did they not pass it then? They not only had the 
Senate, they had the House. Where were all these compassionate minimum 
wage advocates in those 2 years?
  Why is it suddenly in a Presidential year that our distinguished 
friend from Massachusetts comes on, waving his arms, saying, ``Oh, we 
have to do something about the minimum wage"? Because he knew that 89 
percent of the major media in this country who support Clinton were 
going to get excited and say, ``Oh, Bob Dole looks bad because he is 
not for minimum wage.''
  Come on, the people are not stupid. We know doggone well this is a 
game to push up from the bottom so those in organized labor can make 
demands at the top. They know that. It is a game that has been played 
for years, and one reason we are going to get back into the 
inflationary cycle if we get suckered into doing that again.
  But even if the minimum wage is right, if it is so right today, why 
was it not right between 1992 and 1994? If I am shouting here, I hope 
they can hear me outside the Chamber. Where were all the Democrats 
then, these great saviors of the little people? Why, it was not 
politically a great thing to do then because we would have pointed out 
how many jobs would be lost for these disadvantaged young people that 
cannot get that first inception job. History shows that if they get 
that inception job, it will not be long until they will be making a lot 
more than the minimum wage.
  But they have to get the job. I might add, that people who do not get 
the job stay in poverty and on welfare. It is very insensitive to play 
politics with the minimum wage. But if it seems important, if it is one 
of these absolute things that we have to have--I have listened now for 
weeks to the Senator from Massachusetts and others who are advocates 
for the minimum wage.
  It is easy to be advocates, boy, when you have the major media behind 
you because of the recent polls that show who they do back--90 percent 
for President Clinton. Where were they, these wonderful Democrats, 
these wonderful liberals who are so concerned about all the little 
people out there who think the minimum wage is such a tragedy? Where 
were they between 1992 and 1994--tell me--when they had control of this 
body, when they had control of the other body? Where were they?
  Why all of a sudden in an election year to come out here and play 
games with the minimum wage? Why would they use that gameplaying to 
disrupt a bill to correct an absolute legal injustice that all of us 
admit is a legal injustice caused by White House staff, caused by pure 
brazen politics, caused by greed of people who supported the President?
  Why would they want to continue to talk about this for days on end? 
You would think they would have sense enough to get it over with, 
especially since the President says, in the most sincere fashion 
possible, ``You were done wrong, Mr. Dale. And I support the efforts to 
try and resolve that wrong.'' Let the President retire in dignity from 
the Billy Dale fiasco.
  The minimum wage--we can live to fight that another day. But even 
so--I am not going to call it hypocritical--but where were these 
wonderful saviors of the minimum wage in 1992, 1993, 1994? In fact, 
where were they when they took over the Senate in 1986, 1987, 1988? We 
did pass one then, I guess. But where were they in 1992 and 1994 when 
they controlled the Senate, they controlled the House? They could have 
done anything they wanted to do. I guess it was not an election 
year then. I guess because this President had won the heat was off, and 
they could wait to take care of these people during an election year so 
that they could score some political points.

  That may be a little harsh. I will retract a little bit by saying 
there are literally those who have never studied economics in this body 
who really believe that the minimum wage needs to be raised because 
they really believe that they are going to help people to support their 
families with that extra 90 cents over 2 years.
  Give me a break. It will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs for 
disadvantaged youth who will never get a job after that, who, if they 
had gotten a minimum wage job because they were not priced out of the 
marketplace, would go on to make more money, get trained, have the 
dignity that comes from working, and so forth.
  It really bothers me that that battle would be used to defeat or to 
stop or to deter resolving a gross manifest of injustice like what 
happened to Billy Dale and his companions, which happened from this 
White House. It really is amazing to me, absolutely amazing.
  The Democrats on the other side, who are so anxious to do something 
about the minimum wage, did not do anything in 1993. They did not do 
anything in 1994. Why? Because they knew it was bad for the country. 
They knew it was bad for the country. But today raising the minimum 
wage, they think, is good for Democrats, especially with their help in 
the media. But you know there are articles starting to come out by 
those who are thoughtful and reflecting on this, saying, with caution, 
``Be cautious with regard to raising the minimum wage. You may cause 
more problems than you fix.''
  Keep in mind for those out there who buy off on this language that 
you cannot live on whatever the minimum wage is-- $4.25, $4.35 an 
hour--I agree, you cannot support a family on that. But this country is 
not uncompassionate. When you add food stamps, and you add the earned-
income tax credit, and you add a whole raft of other social spending 
programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, when you add all kinds of 
social welfare benefits that they are entitled to under our current 
budget, nobody who runs a family lives on the minimum wage.
  The fact of the matter is, they are entitled to these even if they 
work for the minimum wage. You are talking about an average family 
income of well over $13,000 a year that is well above what an increase 
in the minimum wage, this 90-cent increase, would do at $5.25. Where 
were these people in 1992, 1993, and 1994? Where were they over the 
last 5 years, if it is so important? Why were they not out here getting 
it done since they controlled both Houses of Congress, and in 1993 and 
1994 controlled the Presidency too?

  Where were the unions at that time demanding the minimum wage to be 
increased? I did not hear any real ruffling by the unions or anybody 
else. The reason was, they know doggone well that increasing the 
minimum wage is no panacea, that it does not solve the problems. You 
are still going to have to face the problems. And the best way to do 
that is straight up, and with opportunity, economic opportunity, not 
false mandating, further mandates on the backs of the American people.
  If we had not passed the unfunded mandates bill, I would say, well, 
maybe there is a better logical argument for the minimum wage. The fact 
is, we passed it, and this is a mandate on the backs of American 
business of $1 billion annually. That is something to think about. Why 
would we do that if we think the unfunded mandates bill is so 
important, which passed overwhelmingly here in the United States? I 
could go on and on. But my point is, I hope

[[Page S4723]]

our colleagues on the other side will think better by tomorrow morning.
  This ought to pass on a voice vote. I would prefer to have a vote on 
it just so everybody will know there are 100 Senators who want to right 
this injustice or the series of injustices and these wrongs and who 
want to support the President. And in doing so, the President had the 
guts to stand up and say, ``Yes. The White House did wrong here. And we 
should rectify this.'' I respect him for that. I think we all should.
  But if we have a filibuster tomorrow, I am going to have a rough time 
respecting anybody who participates in that under these circumstances, 
especially since it passed the House 250 to 43. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator suggest the absence of a 
quorum?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________