[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 62 (Tuesday, May 7, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4773-S4780]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 WHITE HOUSE TRAVEL OFFICE LEGISLATION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 2937, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the bill that is 
before us--the bill to reimburse the people that were harmed in the 
unfair firing at the White House in January 1993, the bill that is for 
reimbursement to the people that are called the Travelgate 17.
  Mr. President, I think it is very obvious that when politics stands 
in the way of resolving a right or wrong issue, politics always gets 
trampled. Right means that politics has to be put to the side. Some 
examples come to mind: The civil rights laws of the 1960's; the end of 
the defense buildup in the 1980's; the Congressional Accountability Act 
of 1995, which I sponsored.
  This bill before us falls into that category. It is to reimburse the 
Travelgate 7. Now, obviously, it is much less in scope than all of 
these other major pieces of legislation I mentioned over the last 30 
years. However, let me make it very clear that it is a microcosm of the 
same reality. It is a right and wrong issue. And politics is standing 
in its way. But I predict that politics will stand in its way only 
temporarily. Travelgate is the story of an arrogant White House 
trampling all over the rights of seven dedicated public servants.
  The purpose behind the abuse was so that cronies of the President 
could win the spoils of political gain for themselves.
  One of these people was a rich Hollywood producer, friend of Bill, 
high-dollar campaign contributor, buddy and crony by the name of Harry 
Thomason. The other was a distant cousin of the President's, Catherine 
Cornelius.
  The White House, apparently including the President and First Lady, 
unleashed the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue 
Service, and the Department of Justice to harass these seven citizens. 
As if that were not enough, the White House also used its authority and 
its access to the media to conduct a public smear campaign against the 
seven innocent people. Following something that is too customary in 
this town, they used leaks, innuendoes, and falsities to continue their 
public harassment even after their primary target, Billy Dale, was 
acquitted by a jury, and it only took the jury less than 2 hours of 
deliberation to declare his innocence.
  The net effect of all of this harassment took a real toll--these are 
real people--not only on the seven employees but maybe even more so on 
their families as well. These innocent people

[[Page S4774]]

had their reputations, their dignity, and their psychological well-
being suffer at the hands of an irresponsible White House. This is a 
White House that to this very day refuses to accept its wrongdoing. No 
one takes responsibility for their firings of these seven people.
  What do we get out of the White House? All you get is finger 
pointing. All you get is passing the buck. By the way, the harassment 
continues. But now it is not harassment from the White House; it is 
legislative harassment as we have legislation here trying to right this 
wrong. So the legislation that has just been laid down for today's 
discussion, the bill we have before us is to make these seven innocent 
people economically whole.
  Well, maybe you cannot do that, but at least pay for their legal 
expenses. I do not know how you can right the wrongs that have been 
committed, but at least there is precedent for legislation to pay for 
legal expenses, legal expenses for people who were innocent, declared 
innocent by a jury of their peers.
  So activity moves from the finger pointing at the White House to 
activity up here on the Hill in the legislative process, but the White 
House is still involved, fanning out its lieutenants to sabotage this 
bill in the dark of night. The objective of the White House and the 
opponents of this legislation, the people who are not willing to admit 
a wrong in the firing of seven innocent people, is to bring this bill 
down so that the President is spared the embarrassment of signing a 
bill, the only reason for the existence of which in the first place is 
that the White House fired seven innocent people. In other words, I 
might add, the same President who passed the buck in the first place in 
not taking responsibility for the firings at the White House is behind 
this effort to sabotage this legislation on the Hill to right this 
wrong.

  The legislative harassment strategy began with Democrat Senators 
putting a hold on the bill. For those watching who maybe do not 
understand how Congress works, a hold is a way that any Senator can 
prevent a bill from being considered, and the instigator of any hold 
does not have to identify himself. He can do it in the secrecy of the 
Cloakroom out of the public's eye. But last week the people with the 
hold were smoked out. The rock was lifted. And the instigators of the 
hold went scurrying for cover of darkness once again. Having retreated 
from the back room, they are now positioned at the next line of 
defense, out on the floor of the Senate to use a legislative roadblock. 
It is called muddying the waters, or in this case you might say the 
``whitewaters.''
  This strategy goes like this: how can we as opponents bog down the 
bill on a technicality or some counter argument that sounds reasonable 
but gives us sufficient cover so that we can filibuster the underlying 
legislation, the Travelgate bill, that pays the legal expenses of seven 
innocent people who were fired within the first month that the Clintons 
came to office.
  So the White House, getting their lieutenants on the Hill to take all 
this activity against this simple little bill, comes up with a 
counterargument: If the Travelgate seven are going to get reimbursed, 
why not reimburse everyone associated with the Whitewater 
investigation? And they also came up with a technicality. They say we 
just want to use this bill as a vehicle for other items that are on our 
agenda. They would argue it is our right as minority Members of this 
body.
  So here we are, Mr. President, with politics getting in the way of a 
right and wrong issue, where right ought to win out, but politics, if 
it is played correctly and sophisticated enough, can win. If we cannot 
deal with apples, let us just throw in some oranges. Put it into the 
mix. Confuse the situation. So now in this Chamber to fool the public 
we are dealing with apples and oranges legislation generated by the 
other side of the aisle because they want to protect the President not 
having to veto this legislation.
  However, political barriers to correcting a wrong will not stand. 
Ultimately, public opinion will weigh in against the Democrats and the 
White House on this issue. All the harassment strategies to save the 
President from embarrassment will only make the final embarrassment 
bigger and worse. It is inevitable. It is predictable. It will happen. 
You cannot forever cover up wrong in our open society.
  There is a moral to this story: Nothing is politically right which is 
morally wrong. I wish to repeat the moral of the story: Nothing is 
politically right that is morally wrong.
  That is why all this political maneuvering is destined to fail. The 
public will not tolerate political interference with righting a wrong. 
Frankly, it is time that the President of the United States, the 
occupant of the White House, take responsibility for his actions in 
firing these seven dedicated public servants. What do we get instead? 
He continues the campaign to prevent his own embarrassment over the 
firings. The truth is if the firings and the circumstances were not 
wrong, there would be no embarrassment. But the obvious fact is the 
firings were wrong.

  Why should we expect the President of the United States to accept 
responsibility for his actions? First of all, because he is the 
President of the United States. In that position, he is the moral 
leader of our Nation. A leader is expected to take responsibility for 
his actions or for those who act in his stead. That includes both good 
actions and bad actions.
  Furthermore, I think the President himself has spoken out very loudly 
and clearly about responsibility and, in his saying this, implied that 
he saw the Office of the Presidency as one for moral leadership and he 
was going to assume that moral leadership because of things that he 
said when he was a candidate. While running for office in 1992, he said 
the following: ``Responsibility starts at the top. That's what the New 
Covenant is all about.''
  In a further quote, and this was criticizing, in 1992, then-President 
Bush, candidate Clinton had this to say: ``The buck doesn't stop with 
George Bush; it doesn't even slow down there.''
  I think it is fair to say that on this issue, the buck does not even 
slow down with the President. In fact, I have rarely seen a buck change 
hands so many times. From the perspective of the Office of the 
President and its occupant being moral leader for our Nation, what kind 
of example does that set for the American people? What kind of moral 
leadership is that? Each time that a leader fails to take 
responsibility for his actions, he undercuts his moral authority to 
lead. Over time, a leader like that loses the confidence of those he is 
leading, the people of our country.
  So, more so than anything else that deals with this issue, dollars 
and cents aside, righting wrongs aside, that is the issue here, that is 
the reality of whether moral leadership is going to be the example at 
the White House. The bill is all about Congress taking the initiative 
to right a wrong, and those trying to block it are conspiring against 
the President taking responsibility for his mistakes. But the issue is 
moral leadership of the White House, a President saying when he is 
wrong that he is wrong.
  So I urge my colleagues on the other side to save the President any 
more embarrassment. Stop legislative shenanigans. Work with us to do 
what little we can to repair what was unjustly done to seven dedicated 
public servants, innocent by a determination of the jury, unfairly 
fired within just a matter of days of a new President being sworn in.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, again, speaking about the bill that is 
before us, the bill to reimburse Mr. Dale for his legal expenses that 
were attributed to him in his defense when the jury found him innocent 
of the wrongdoing he was charged with supposedly at the running of the 
White House Travel Office and his firing by the White House, I want to 
continue my discussion of this legislation by referring to one of the 
evening news shows. I believe it is NBC that has a segment called ``In 
Their Own Words,''

[[Page S4775]]

that lets real people tell a story in their own words without the 
filter of a journalist's slant on that story. I would like to do my own 
version of ``In Their Words.''
  On January 24 of this year, a hearing was held in the other body by 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. The witnesses 
included the seven fired from the White House Travel Office. I want my 
colleagues to know firsthand of the indignity suffered by these seven 
at the hands of our leaders in the White House. So, for the Record, I 
will quote these seven employees in their own words from their own 
testimony, their own prepared statements before the House committee.
  The first statement--and I am not going to quote the whole statement, 
just portions of it--the first statement is by Billy Dale, the person 
that the legislation before us involves. He was former director of the 
White House Travel Office. These are a couple paragraphs from his 
statement:

       It was not easy for me or my family. We were subjected to 
     the most intense intrusions and harassment you can imagine. 
     We were sustained during those very difficult times by our 
     faith and the many friends and professional colleagues who 
     stood by our side.
       I had hoped that after the jury found me not guilty so 
     quickly, we could return to the very quiet and simple life we 
     used to live. However, since the release of David Watkins' 
     memorandum describing how he was supposedly pressured to fire 
     the entire staff at the White House Travel Office, I have 
     been subjected to false attacks at least as vicious as the 
     ones I was tried and acquitted. This time, however, there is 
     no trial pending.

  To further quote at another point in Mr. Dale's testimony:

       What matters to me is that fancy lawyers and others who 
     speak for the White House not be allowed to get away with the 
     lie that my colleagues and I were involved in other kinds 
     of wrongdoing. It also matters to me that people not be 
     allowed to spread the equally vicious lie that I was 
     willing to plead guilty to embezzlement before trial. And, 
     finally, it matters to me that these same people not be 
     allowed to tell the public that the Travel Office was 
     cleaned up and is now managed better.

  A further quote from Mr. Dale at another point in his testimony:

       All these facts lead us to conclude that the financial 
     mismanagement that the White House says is the reason we were 
     fired is just a convenient excuse. If the President or the 
     First Lady or anyone else wanted us out in order to give the 
     business to their friends and supporters, that was their 
     privilege. But why can't they just admit that that is what 
     they wanted to do, rather than continue to make up 
     accusations to hide that fact?

  Another person who testified before the House Government Operations 
Committee is Barney Brasseux, and I quote from his testimony:

       For me, the 19th of May, 1993 was the beginning of a 
     difficult time and the first of several eventful days that 
     turned my life upside down. I was fired, told to vacate the 
     premises within 2 hours, driven out of the White House in the 
     back of a cargo van with no seats, implicated by the White 
     House in criminal wrongdoing and placed under investigation 
     by the United States Justice Department, even though I had no 
     financial responsibility whatsoever in the office.
       Many questions and concerns have been raised in these 
     reports regarding the handling of our termination. The manner 
     of our dismissal, the damage to our reputations, the impact 
     of this action on our families, the possible involvement of 
     the First Lady of the United States, and the role of the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation are just a few. All of these 
     issues are very important to me and I trust to you as well.

  A further quote from John P. McSweeney. The title of his position at 
the White House was assistant to the director, White House Travel 
Office:

       Although I have been a registered Democrat for 44 years, it 
     was not a political but a civil service appointment. This 
     came to an abrupt halt while I was on leave in Ireland when 
     my son Jim called to inform me that the evening news shows 
     had just announced that the entire staff of our office had 
     been fired and that the FBI was starting an investigation for 
     possible criminal activity.

  Continuing to quote Mr. McSweeney:

       Although the White House recognized that not all of us had 
     any financial authority, for the next 30 months we all became 
     part of a full-blown Department of Justice investigation with 
     Billy Dale as their target. For myself, it involved FBI 
     agents interviewing my neighbors, two grand jury appearances, 
     two Justice Department and FBI interviews, and one meeting 
     with the IRS, along with legal fees of over $65,000 of my 
     retirement funds.
       Over time, where before I had been intimidated, it now 
     turned to complete frustration as the White House had free 
     reign with the media in putting out its story while we were 
     muzzled by the Justice Department. They presented me with a 
     letter that stated that I was not a subject or target of 
     their investigation at the present time, which meant that 
     anything I said could be used against me.

  Again, from Mr. McSweeney, he had this to say:

       We were already described as no more than glorified bellmen 
     for the press. I would only quote the President at his press 
     conference of last week when he said, ``an allegation is not 
     the same thing as a fact'' and also that [quoting the 
     President] ``the American people are fundamentally fair-
     minded.'' [End of quote of the President.]

  Mr. McSweeney goes on to say.

       I would hope that he [meaning the President] would repeat 
     his statement to some of his spokesmen.
       Along these same lines, during your hearings of last week, 
     a new so-what, who-cares attitude seemed to be the new theme 
     for some in this room. During a recent First Lady interview, 
     Mrs. Clinton expressed, as would any parent, how concerned 
     she was and the effort she had made to help her daughter cope 
     with hearing the many negative comments being made about her 
     mother.
       Blanche Dale, unfortunately, was not able to do so for her 
     daughters over the past 30 months. She had to sit and watch 
     as her daughter Kim who, 2 days after returning from her 
     honeymoon, had to report to the Department of Justice and 
     show how she had paid for her wedding, her reception, her 
     honeymoon, and, since we were present at her reception, 
     answer questions about any discussions we may have had.
       Her daughter Vickie, when interviewed by the Justice 
     Department, in explaining that she was giving her cash car 
     payments to her father so that he could deposit them in the 
     White House Credit Union for her, was asked if she was not 
     uncomfortable with giving her cash to someone who was 
     stealing money from the Travel Office.
       To those who say so what, you should remember that the 
     American people may have a gray area on legalese, but they 
     know right from wrong.

  That is the end of quoting from the House document.
  The American people do know right from wrong. That is why a jury of 
peers of Mr. Dale acquitted him. That is why this legislation is before 
us, because the American people do know right from wrong. But the White 
House has not admitted right from wrong yet.
  So, Madam President, I want to conclude by saying something that 
Shakespeare had to say in the play ``Othello,'' because the character 
of Iago in that play seemed to sum up nicely what each of these seven 
employees and their families went through. I will quote from 
Shakespeare.
       Who steals my purse steals trash. But he that filches from 
     me my good name, robs me of that which not enriches him, and 
     makes me poor indeed.

  That is what we are talking about here, Madam President. And this 
bill before us does not even begin to address what really makes these 
citizens poor. Money alone cannot do it, but this bill is a start. So I 
urge my colleagues to help make a start for them on their road to 
recovery.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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 (Mr. Grassley). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to make a few comments about this 
Billy Dale bill.
  As everybody knows, Billy Dale was unjustly persecuted. His 
colleagues were mistreated. The costs to them are unfair. You would 
think everybody in the Senate would want to immediately rectify all of 
those wrongs. I hope that our colleagues on the other side will not 
filibuster this because of their concerns about other legislation that 
they will have an opportunity to bring up.
  This is very, very important legislation. It is fair. It will 
establish a decent resolution to what really has been awful. Let me 
just give the time line of some of the Travel Office events so that 
everybody understands, at least to a certain degree, what happened 
here.
  On May 19, 1993, the White House fired all seven Travel Office 
employees. At least two of those individuals first learned about their 
dismissals on the evening news. Talk about a crass way of doing it. The 
White House first stated that the firings came as a result of an 
internal audit revealing financial irregularities in the office.
  Several months of independent review and oversight hearings uncovered

[[Page S4776]]

the actual motivation for the firings. Certain people, hoping to 
advance their own financial interests, attempted to destroy the 
reputations of the Travel Office employees and take over the Travel 
Office business of the White House, and, I might add, some indication 
of the whole Government. These same persons used White House staff 
members to initiate a baseless criminal investigation by the FBI. It 
was one of the low ebbs in criminal law enforcement in this country.
  According to the congressional investigation, certain individuals 
were responsible for the firings--Catherine Cornelius, a cousin of the 
President employed at the White House; Harry Thomason, a close personal 
friend of the President and First Lady; Darnell Martins, Mr. Thomason's 
business partner; and David Watkins, assistant to the President for 
management and administration. These were the people primarily 
responsible for the firings.
  In December 1992, discussions took place between Ms. Cornelius and 
World Wide Travel, the agency that served the Clinton-Gore campaign, 
about the eventual takeover of the White House Travel Office business.

  In January 1993, Watkins hired Ms. Cornelius. Soon thereafter, the 
Travel Office began taking calls from Ms. Cornelius as the new head of 
the Travel Office.
  In February 1993, Ms. Cornelius provided Watkins with a proposal that 
would make her a co-director of the White House Travel Office and would 
hire World Wide Travel as the outside travel specialist.
  In April and May 1993, Ms. Cornelius began to focus on the Travel 
Office and with Harry Thomason claimed that there were allegations of 
corruption within the office. During this time, Ms. Cornelius and Mr. 
Thomason pushed to have World Wide take over the Travel Office 
business.
  In May 1993, employees of the White House counsel's office, Ms. 
Cornelius, and others met with the FBI regarding the Travel Office. 
Although the FBI was unsure that enough evidence existed to warrant a 
criminal investigation, William Kennedy of the White House counsel's 
office, former partner of the First Lady, informed Bureau agents that a 
request for an FBI evaluation came from the highest levels. At this 
time, it was determined that the accounting firm of Peat Marwick would 
be asked to perform an audit of the Travel Office.
  On May 14, Peat Marwick's management consultants made their first 
trip to the White House.
  On May 17, Mr. Watkins and Mr. McLarty decided to fire the Travel 
Office staff. Although Mr. Dale offered to retire, Mr. Watkins told him 
to wait until the review was complete.
  On May 19, Patsy Thomasson informed Mr. Kennedy that a decision had 
been made to fire the travel office workers. Kennedy informed the FBI, 
who warned him that the firings could interfere with their criminal 
investigation. Kennedy informed the Bureau that the firings would go 
ahead anyway.
  That same day, before the bodies were even cold, Mr. Martens called a 
friend from Air Advantage to have her arrange the Presidential press 
charters. Meanwhile, Mr. Kennedy instructed Mr. Watkins to delete any 
reference to the FBI investigation from talking points on the firings.
  At 10 a.m. that same morning, Watkins informed the travel office 
employees that they were being fired because a review revealed gross 
mismanagement in the office. They were initially told that they had 2 
hours to pack up, clean out their desks, and leave. Watkins learned 
that press secretary Dee Dee Myers had publicly disclosed existence of 
the FBI investigation as well as the Peat Marwick review. Later that 
same day, Myers gave another press briefing in which she denied that an 
FBI investigation had taken place. She claimed that the firings were 
based on the Peat Marwick review.
  Interestingly, the Peat Marwick review was not finalized until May 
21, 1993, 2 days after the firings. The report was dated on May 17, 
however. The report gave no assurances as to either its completeness or 
its accuracy. In any event, while the report found certain accounting 
irregularities, it found no evidence of fraud.
  In May 1994, the General Accounting Office reported to Congress that 
while the White House claimed the terminations were based on ``findings 
of serious financial mismanagement weaknesses, we noted that 
individuals who had personal and business interests in the travel 
office created the momentum that ultimately led to the examination of 
the travel office operations.'' GAO, the General Accounting Office, 
further noted that ``the public acknowledgment of the criminal 
investigation had the effect of tarnishing the employees' reputations, 
and the existence of the criminal investigation caused the employees to 
retain legal counsel, reportedly at considerable expense.''
  Of course, as everyone in this body knows, Mr. Dale was the only 
travel office employee to be indicted. And it took a jury only 2 days 
to acquit Mr. Dale after a 13-day trial.
  There was no reason to indict Mr. Dale. There was no reason to 
tarnish the reputation of these White House Travel Office employees. 
There was no reason to brutalize these people the way they were 
brutalized. And there is no reason for us in this body not to pass this 
legislation unanimously and to resolve this manner in an honorable, 
compassionate, reasonable, honest, and decent way. That is what this is 
all about. This is to right a wrong, or a series of wrongs.
  It may never fully resolve the tarnishing of the reputations of these 
people. It may never do that. But at least we can do what we can do at 
this late date, because of the injustices that were committed at the 
White House by certain White House employees and whoever those were who 
were referred to as those at the top of the heap, at ``the highest 
levels of the White House.''
  Frankly, whoever they were, they ought to be ashamed of themselves 
because in all honesty, these poor people, whose situation we are 
trying to resolve today, have been very badly damaged.
  I do not know what it means, by ``the highest levels of the White 
House,'' but I have carefully stayed away from some of the 
characterizations that others have given, where there are some facts 
that would indicate who are at the highest levels of the White House 
and who were at that particular time.
  Just so everybody knows about what is going on here, this legislation 
provides for payment of the legal expenses incurred by Billy Dale, 
Barney Brasseux, John Dreylinger, Ralph Maughan, John McSweeney, and 
Gary Wright. The legal expenses are in connection with the wrongful 
criminal investigation launched against these seven people subsequent 
to their firings.

  Though Mr. Dale suffered the greatest financial loss, half a million 
dollars, the remaining six employees collectively incurred about 
$200,000 in their own defense. The appropriations bill for the 
Department of Transportation for fiscal 1994 provided approximately 
$150,000 in reimbursement of legal fees. This bill would provide the 
balance.
  This bill would not provide for compensation of all expenses 
associated with the investigation into the Travel Office matter, such 
as legal costs incurred in preparation for appearing before Congress. 
But it would provide for attorney's fees and costs that resulted from 
these seven defending themselves against criminal charges.
  The Travel Office employees will have 120 days after this legislation 
is enacted make a claim for legal expenses. All legal bills submitted 
will be reviewed for their appropriateness and any reimbursement will 
be reduced according to prior Department of Transportation 
reimbursements.
  According to independent counsel statutes, attorneys' fees may be 
reimbursed to individuals confronted with the unique circumstance of 
being subject to the scrutiny of a Federal investigation. This is not 
something that the ordinary U.S. citizen is subject to. In the case of 
the White House Travel Office firings, the staff of the Travel office 
was investigated by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, and the Internal Revenue Service. But for the fact that 
they were Federal employees, who were fired by the White House, these 
individuals would not have been investigated by these agencies. The 
White House was able to bring the power of Federal law enforcement to 
bear on otherwise

[[Page S4777]]

blameless individuals. And people know that they are blameless.
  Reimbursement of legal fees under independent counsel statutes was 
designed, at least partially, because of the potential for political 
abuse of the investigative power of the independent counsel. The White 
House has the authority to wield tremendous power with respect to 
Federal investigations. None of the Travel Office employees held 
prominent posts in the White House, but they became a target of a 
Federal criminal investigation. These public servants never should have 
been scrutinized in this way and forced to defend themselves in this 
manner.
  Hamilton Jordan, who worked for the Carter administration, is an 
example of a case in which attorney's fees were reimbursed. Mr. 
Hamilton Jordan was investigated for charges of cocaine use. After an 
independent counsel was appointed and the evidence was examined, all 
charges were dropped. I felt that was a low point in our country's 
history. In defending himself through this ordeal, Mr. Jordan spent 
thousands of dollars in legal fees. Since the charges were baseless, 
Congress provided reimbursement of his legal expenses and related 
costs. His legal fees were reimbursed, in part, because he was a 
Federal employee and would not, under ordinary circumstances, be 
subject to an independent counsel investigation. The circumstances of 
the Travel Office employees are similar in this respect.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues on the other side are not going 
to delay this bill. I hope that, as serious and as deeply as they feel 
about other matters, that they will recognize the injustices that have 
occurred here and we will all vote 100 to zip to rectify these wrongs 
that have occurred to these White House people, former White House 
people.
  Like I say, we may never be able to make it up to them because of the 
tarnishing of their reputations that occurred through this process. But 
we ought to do the best we can, and that is what this bill is all 
about. It is the right thing to do. It is the appropriate thing to do. 
It is the compassionate thing to do. And I think it is a long overdue 
thing to do.
  I do not know anybody on the other side who would vote against this. 
I do not know anybody on the other side who would differ with what we 
are trying to do here.
  This has been a bipartisan effort. Like I say, 350 Members of the 
House voted for it, only 43 against it. I think it is time for us to do 
what is right here, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the floor 
will help us get this done today.
  I see my colleague would like to speak. I have some other things I 
want to say on another matter. Is it on this matter?
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from Utah will 
allow me, I would like to make a few comments and maybe engage the 
Senator in a couple of questions, if that is permissible.
  Mr. HATCH. That is fine. I will be happy to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield the floor?
  Mr. HATCH. I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair for recognizing me, and I also thank the 
distinguished Senator from Utah, the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, for allowing me to make a few comments and observations, 
plus ask a couple of questions.
  First, the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. President, just said 
that the proposal to appropriate or to allocate some $487,000 to pay 
the legal fees for Mr. Billy Dale is to right a wrong. I think this 
body wants to right a wrong, and I think this body, if there has been a 
wrong committed in the Billy Dale matter, will support the 
distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  However, before we do that, I think we need to really ask ourselves 
what we are doing here.
  First, to right this wrong, as the distinguished chairman has 
mentioned, we are going to be overlooking a very, very large number of 
individuals who have been wronged. Now, are we going to apply this same 
test and this same standard, are we then going to try to right this 
wrong for many, many people who have come to testify before the Special 
Watergate Committee, who have testified before Kenneth Starr's grand 
jury and before the trial in Little Rock, AR? What sort of a standard 
are we going to adopt for these individuals?
  For example, Maggie Williams is the secretary to Mrs. Clinton at the 
White House. Today, she is not a target. Today, she does not expect, I 
assume, to be indicted. Today, there is no one who stands at the gate 
with shackles or leg irons to take Maggie Williams off to jail, but 
today she owes over $200,000 in legal bills. This is not someone who 
makes a great sum of money, relatively speaking, Mr. President. This is 
someone who, basically, was doing her job as she saw fit, along with 
many other people who are involved in the White House and who have been 
called before the special committee and before Mr. Starr.

  We have had 45 hearings and 5 public meetings. This committee has met 
250 hours. The committee has heard testimony from 123 individuals. They 
have taken depositions from 213 individuals. Some of these witnesses 
have testified and have been deposed two and three times. These numbers 
do not include the hundreds of other citizens who have been deposed and 
appeared as witnesses before committees in the House of 
Representatives, the independent counsel, the RTC, and the FDIC.
  Mr. President, I ask my friend from Utah, is there not some degree of 
sentiment or concern for these individuals? Perhaps I can pose that 
question to my friend.
  Mr. HATCH. This is considerably different from Whitewater. I have to 
say the Whitewater investigation is not completed. As a member of the 
Whitewater Committee, I have to say that there is an awful lot of 
undercurrent, an awful lot that is wrong with what went on in that 
area. There are a lot of unanswered questions. There are documents 
still to be delivered. There are questions concerning each of the 
witnesses who have appeared. I think until that is resolved, as was 
Billy Dale's, I do not think we can make a determination as to whether 
we should get involved with attorney's fees.
  Let us assume there is a tremendous injustice at the end of the 
Whitewater matter. I think you are going to have a rough time making 
that case with all of what some would call the sleaze factor throughout 
the Whitewater hearings and proceedings. But let us assume that it 
turns out to be the same as Billy Dale's and the White House Travel 
Office employees' acquittal or even a clear-cut set of facts that there 
really was nothing wrong and nobody did anything wrong. I personally 
believe that is going to be a hard conclusion to reach after having 
listened and watched the Whitewater proceedings now for a long time. 
But let us assume that happens. Yes, I would be interested in righting 
that wrong as well.
  In this case, we have come to a conclusion. I think the effective 
conclusion was when Billy Dale had to go through the litigation and the 
courtroom proceedings, having been accused of criminal activity, having 
been indicted and having gone through a jury trial and having a jury of 
his peers conclude that Billy Dale was an honest man. I think the facts 
showed he was an honest man throughout this process.
  I think that is completely distinguishable, at least at this time. 
Now, if at the end of Whitewater there are those who have been unjustly 
treated in the same manner who had the same clear vindication that Mr. 
Dale and his colleagues have, yes, this Senator would want to do what 
is right there as well.

  Until it is concluded, I do not see how you can argue that is the 
same situation. Although I have to tell you, I really believe there is 
far too much of this stuff going on, these counteraccusations back and 
forth, and far too many things that are done on a political basis.
  Frankly, one last thing, since Whitewater--let me just make that 
point a little bit better, too. I think there is far too much politics 
played on both sides from time to time. But just to make the point on 
the Whitewater, I have to say, the subject of Whitewater is the subject 
of an independent counsel investigation, which Billy Dale's was not, 
and subjects of an independent counsel investigation will have a right 
to be compensated for attorney's fees, assuming there is no

[[Page S4778]]

wrong, if there is no indictment handed down, and that is the way the 
law is. So there is a protection built in on the Whitewater matter that 
is not built in on the Billy Dale matter.
  Be that as it may, my colleague has been a friend of mine for a long 
time. He knows me, and I know him, and he is my friend. He knows if I 
think there is an injustice, I do not care about the politics, I am 
going to try to right that wrong. In this case, I do not think anybody 
denies there was an injustice. I do not think anybody denies there was 
a series of wrongs. I do not think anybody denies his reputation and 
those of his colleagues were besmirched and tarnished by inappropriate 
action by certain people at the White House and others. I do not think 
he would deny at all there is no other way to get them reimbursed for 
this travesty which happened to them other than our doing the right 
thing and compassionately standing up and saying we are going to 
reimburse them.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I think it is time to set the record 
straight. The distinguished Senator from Utah has stated if Billy Dale, 
who has been indicted and now we are about to pay his attorney's fees--
if there is an indictment by the special counsel, by Kenneth Starr, or 
any other special counsel, if that indictment ever comes forth, then 
the attorney's fees are not automatically paid, they are not reimbursed 
if there is an indictment by the special counsel.
  We are carving out a very special, new area here, Mr. President, and 
I think we ought to all know what we are doing.
  Mr. HATCH. Let us make it clear. If Maggie Williams, to use the 
distinguished Senator's illustration, is not indicted, she is entitled 
to attorney's fees reimbursement. If she is indicted, she is not.
  If she is indicted and she is tried in a court of law--and I do not 
mean to pick on Maggie. The Senator used the illustration. Let us use 
just a hypothetical. Let us say ``A'' is indicted. They go to the 
criminal trial, and ``A'' is convicted. We are not going to pay the 
attorney fees in that situation. But let us say ``A'' is acquitted, 
then I think it is an appropriate thing for us to come at that time and 
see what we can do to right the wrongs that were there.
  Mr. PRYOR. I think once again, Mr. President, we are setting out Mr. 
Dale as a very special individual. This is special legislation to 
benefit him. Others do not have the benefit of this special 
legislation. I am simply saying that if we are going to do this for 
one, I do not understand why we do not do it for others.
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator would yield. I do not think we should do it 
prospectively. I think if we see wrongs, we can right them on the 
floor. I do not see any reason to have any problem righting this wrong. 
If there are wrongs that need to be righted in the future, as chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee I am going to do my best to right them. My 
colleague knows that is so. I do not care about the politics and who is 
on whose side. If I think it is wrong, we ought to do it. But I do not 
think we should do it prospectively for a blanket righting of wrongs 
without knowing what case it is.
  This is special legislation, there is no question about it. But, Mr. 
Dale, Billy Dale, is a special case. He was singled out by the White 
House for an unjust prosecution, frankly, very unjustly so, wrongly so. 
I think, since my friend is from Arkansas and is the strongest 
supporter of the President here, that he would give credibility to even 
the President's comments that he thinks this ought to be righted, these 
wrongs ought to be resolved.
  Mr. PRYOR. Once again, I think, Mr. President, we need to set the 
record straight. The White House did not prosecute Mr. Dale. The White 
House did not prosecute Mr. Dale. The Justice Department prosecuted Mr. 
Dale. He was indicted by a grand jury. He was acquitted. Maybe that is 
good. I am not here to argue that. I may very well support this, but 
what I would say----
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield? The Justice Department leaked his 
plea arrangements. The Attorney General is appointed by the White 
House. I am not blaming her. The White House has a certain element of 
control there. White House officials brought in FBI people. They 
directed the FBI to investigate this.
  Frankly, without the White House, this travesty would never have 
occurred. It was people in the White House who absolutely were wrong. 
Everybody knows today who brought this about. I have to say, Billy Dale 
went down the drain financially and reputationwise because of people 
down at the White House, some of whom have greed on their minds with 
outside people, who did not care about Billy Dale, did not care who 
they tramped on. They did not care about this poor little guy who 
served eight Presidents, and his colleagues, and put them through an 
untold amount of misery, that he still is suffering from, and has 
broken them without any justification whatsoever, not any. Even Peat 
Marwick agrees with that.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Utah made an 
impassioned plea for justice, an impassioned plea to, so-called, right 
a wrong. I hope the Senator from Utah will apply that same passionate 
plea for justice to my sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I hope that the 
Senator from Utah will allow me, this Senator from Arkansas, to call up 
amendment No. 3959 to this Travelgate proposal and allow a sense-of-
the-Senate resolution to go forth.
  If I might ask the distinguished Senator, has the Senator filled up 
the tree or is an amendment possible?
  Mr. HATCH. The tree is filled up.
  Mr. PRYOR. Is there any reason why we cannot amend this bill? I want 
to know that.
  Mr. HATCH. What is the sense-of-the-Senate resolution?
  Mr. PRYOR. I am glad the Senator asks.

       Sense of the Senate for the reimbursement to certain 
     individuals for legal expenses relating to the Whitewater 
     Development Corporation investigation.
       Findings. The Senate finds that--
       (1) The Senate Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater 
     Development Corporation and Related Matters . . . has 
     required depositions from 213 individuals and testimony 
     before the committee from 123 individuals;
       (2) many public servants and other citizens have incurred 
     considerable legal expenses responding to requests of the 
     Committee;
       (3) many of these public servants and other citizens were 
     not involved with the Whitewater Development Corporation or 
     related matters under investigation;

  And here, I say to my friend:

       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) a legal expense fund should be established 
     to compensate individuals for legal expenses incurred 
     responding to requests by the Committee; and [finally]
       (2) only those individuals who have not been named, 
     targeted, or convicted in the investigation of the 
     Independent Counsel relating to the Whitewater Development 
     Corporation should be eligible for reimbursement from the 
     fund.

  If they are indicted, they do not get any compensation for their 
attorneys. If they are not, if they are not named, if they are not a 
target--how in the world can we keep bringing these people up here, 
arraigning them before the committee, making them pay their own 
expenses, making them absorb all these legal fees? How can we do it? I 
hope you will allow me to introduce and present this sense-of-the-
Senate resolution.
  Mr. HATCH. Of course, we cannot do that. First of all, there would be 
somebody in here on every congressional hearing. So we cannot allow 
that. That is way too broad. Second, you know, our bill does not cover 
congressional hearings. This Billy Dale hearing does not cover 
congressional hearings. I am talking about the bipartisan bill of both 
sides. It does not cover congressional hearings. They are not going to 
be reimbursed for their attorney fees for that. They are reimbursed for 
their attorney fees to protect themselves from criminal charges.
  Frankly, this is not going to reimburse Mr. Dale for everything he 
has incurred. It certainly is never going to get his reputation back, 
although I think everybody who knows him and knows what happened 
probably respects him even more today for having gone through what he 
did.
  Let me just make a point here. Even some of the most partisan people 
in the House were in favor of this bill. A person I have a lot of 
respect for as one of the more intelligent Democrats in the House is 
Barney Frank of Massachusetts. This is right out of the Congressional 
Record during the House debate. He said this:

       Mr. Speaker, the Congress retains always not the right but 
     the responsibility to make

[[Page S4779]]

     judgments case by case. I think the gentleman from New Mexico 
     has fairly pointed out, should some other individuals come 
     before the Congress and be able to make claims that Congress 
     finds similarly meritorious, they may benefit. I do have to 
     differ a little bit with the argument that says, ``Well, we 
     should not do it for anybody if we cannot do it for 
     everybody.''

  Then he goes on to say:

       Mr. Speaker, we unfortunately rarely can do justice for 
     everyone. I have myself, because I served on 
     the Administrative Law Subcommittee, which dealt with 
     claims on the Immigration Subcommittee, been part of 
     bringing to this floor legislation that made some people 
     whole when other people similarly situated were not made 
     whole. We can never do it all. And I think it would be a 
     mistake to say either we do all of it or we do none of it.

  Then he goes on to say:

       Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico, who I 
     think stated it the best way we can. This neither sets a 
     precedent nor precludes someone. Any new case will be judged 
     on the same merits.

  There is one of the leading Democrats on the Judiciary Committee in 
the House, one of the brightest people in the House of Representatives, 
a person I have worked with ever since he has been here, I have to say, 
someone who is known as a very intelligent, aggressive, and effective 
partisan in the Democratic Party, and someone whose liberal credentials 
I think would match anybody's over here. He made it clear that you just 
cannot solve every case with one bill.
  I will just say this to my dear friend from Arkansas. I feel for 
people who are called before congressional hearings. I do. I wish we 
never had to call anybody, except to enlighten us and help us pass 
better legislation. I do think independent counsel are used far too 
often. I also think that far too often people do have to hire attorneys 
around here just to make sure they are protected and they have some 
protection for themselves.
  I understand that personally. There were very unjust accusations 
against me where I had to hire attorneys that cost me over 
$300,000 just to make sure that nobody pulls any dirty tricks on you. 
Frankly, nobody understands that. Nobody reimbursed me, I have to say. 
I think there are many, many other Members who have had similar 
situations where they have been very unjustly treated and where they 
get stuck with attorney fees. I personally do not like it. I personally 
think it is wrong.

  In Whitewater, I think we do have to wait until it is over, at least 
until we conclude the hearings, and then determine if people are 
indicted--if they are indicted; if they are not, they are not--and then 
determine which cases are those where there has been injustice. It has 
to be on a case-by-case basis. That is my experience in the Judiciary 
Committee. Otherwise, we would be the fountain of all money here.
  Now, with respect to your amendment, I note that, No. 1, the 
Whitewater investigation is not complete. When it is, we can consider 
whether or not we will compensate people for testifying regarding 
Whitewater. Your sense-of-the-Senate resolution would set a bad 
precedent to provide compensation even before the investigation is 
complete.
  No. 2, our bill, unlike your sense-of-the-Senate resolution, does not 
provide compensation, any compensation, for those who might testify 
before the Congress. It provides compensation in this case for what are 
legitimate reasons, what are compassionate reasons, what are honest and 
just reasons, that I think virtually everybody, except 43 Members of 
the House, would agree with.
  I think if my colleague would take my word for it, I certainly will 
try to rectify any injustices that come in the future, whether from 
Whitewater or others, and I think maybe by remedying some of these 
things, maybe we can get Members of Congress and other people who are 
so quick to smear people to not do so much because it will cost the 
taxpayer occasionally to rectify these wrongs.
  Frankly, I would like to get rid of the smear tactics in the White 
House, and sometimes in the Congress, and get down to doing our jobs 
and doing them modestly, without trying to make political advantage, as 
some have done--I am not accusing the Senator from Arkansas of doing 
this--as some have done in times past.
  I think this is a completely distinguishable thing from Whitewater, 
even though I understand the distinguished Senator has many friends who 
have been involved in the investigation and is concerned about them, as 
I would be if I was their Senator. I think, justly, he is raising these 
issues so we will be more sensitive about them in the future. I assure 
my colleagues I will be sensitive about them.

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I think there is another injustice here, 
and that injustice is that we are bringing this measure to the floor of 
the Senate and we are being precluded from offering any amendments to 
it whatever. We cannot offer any amendments to it.
  Now, I wonder how defensible that position is by the Senator from 
Utah, when all that I have here is a simple sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution. It does not require anything. It does not appropriate one 
dime. It merely says that a legal defense fund should be established to 
compensate individuals for legal expenses incurred, responding to 
requests by the committee, and only those individuals who have not been 
named, targeted, or convicted in the investigation of the independent 
counsel related to the Whitewater Development Corp. should be eligible 
for reimbursement from the fund.
  Does the Senator from Utah say that he is going to preclude me from 
offering this amendment, this simple sense-of-the-Senate resolution?
  Mr. HATCH. I am saying that the Senator is already precluded because 
the trees are filled up.
  Second, we should just understand here, the reason why the trees were 
filled is because this is a noncontroversial, bipartisan-supported, I 
think, 100 to zip vote in the Senate, and some of our colleagues on the 
other side want to load it up with controversial partisan amendments.
  Frankly, I would just like to pass the bill and find the right 
vehicle to bring up the partisan amendments. With regard to the 
Senator's sense-of-the-Senate resolution, which I think he would have 
to admit would not be binding on anybody, frankly, I think the Senator 
should take my word that if there are injustices with these people, we 
will work them out in the future. As chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, I do not want any injustices there any more than I do in the 
case of Billy Dale. Until the investigation is complete, I think it is 
untoward for us to try to set up or even mention in a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution that we should set up a general fund to take care of 
these things. We can take care of these things.
  In the past when we have had injustices, we have come in with special 
bills like this to resolve them. That is the way they ought to be done. 
We have not resolved all injustices in the past. I know some that 
should have been but were not. In this case, this is one everyone 
admits ought to be adjusted, except for 43 Members of the House of 
Representatives. I think everybody in the Senate thinks it ought to be 
adjusted and resolved. I personally want to get this resolved. I hope 
my colleagues will let us do it. I think, of all the things to 
filibuster, this should not be it.

  I can see other heavyweight bills where there is widespread political 
disagreement when a filibuster is legitimate. I would be the first to 
say you have every right to do it. On this bill, I think it is 
unseemly. It smacks of looking like you are trying to protect a White 
House when we just want to get it over with, or I want to get it over 
with and right this wrong. By dragging it out, you are saying you are 
not willing to right a wrong.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, there is not one Member on this side of the 
aisle of the U.S. Senate trying to slow this bill down. We are not 
trying to slow this bill down. We are trying to offer a simple sense-
of-the-Senate resolution. We have been locked out. We are not going to 
be able to offer any amendments to this.
  Now, another amendment that could slow this bill down--and I assume 
the Senator from Utah is not going to let this Senator offer that 
amendment, talking about ``to right a wrong''--and that is to deal with 
the GATT loophole, the GATT loophole as it relates to Glaxo and Zantac, 
forcing the seniors of America, forcing the consumers of America and 
the veterans of America to pay an unreasonable fee for Zantac and other 
drugs, $5 million a day--$5 million a day. I do not see the Senator

[[Page S4780]]

up here saying we have to right that wrong.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. PRYOR. Would you permit me to offer an amendment relative to 
righting that wrong, to protect the consumers from these unfair drug 
prices?
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield, first of all, it is not a 
wrong. The Senate Judiciary Committee just passed a bill out to resolve 
that----
  Mr. PRYOR. I want to talk about it.
  Mr. HATCH. To resolve that matter, 10-7. That is the appropriate way 
to debate this. If the Senator disagrees with that bill, the Senator 
can do so.
  I think it is telling here that we have a bill which passed the House 
350 to 43 that the President said he would sign to right this wrong, 
that my friends on the other side of the aisle are attempting to 
derail.
  Mr. PRYOR. We are not trying to derail anything.
  Mr. HATCH. Sure you are, if you vote against cloture. Keep in mind, 
if we have cloture, any relevant amendment--this is amendable by any 
relevant amendment--if we get cloture, you can bring up any relevant 
amendment you want. Of course, the GATT amendment is not relevant. Any 
germane amendment, I should say.

  I am really concerned that my colleagues on the other side are more 
concerned about partisanship than righting wrongs. Everybody knows that 
the GATT amendment which the distinguished Senator has tried to pass 
now for months and which is heartfelt on both sides, is certainly not 
germane to this bill. It is not relevant to this bill. It certainly 
would cloud this bill, as would any other amendment.
  We want to pass a bill that rights this terrific wrong to Billy Dale 
and to his colleagues.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I hope my colleague will allow me to say 
something. No one knows more than the distinguished Senator from Utah 
that, under some conditions, relevancy does not matter as to an 
amendment in the Senate. It does in the House but not in Senate. So set 
that record straight.
  Second, the Senator has mentioned that the Judiciary Committee on 
Thursday, 10 to 7, passed out the solution to the Glaxo amendment.
  Mr. President, what this did, this particular measure, I say in all 
respect to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the 
Judiciary Committee's proposal to correct the Glaxo issue made matters 
worse for the generic drug companies by adding 20 more months of patent 
protection for Glaxo and for a handful of drug companies that are 
reaping a $5-million-a-day windfall from our error. That is what the 
bill did. This bill that came from the Judiciary Committee on Thursday 
added additional obstacles. It added months and perhaps years of court 
litigation.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 12:30 
has arrived.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 30 
seconds for each of us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. What in the world does the Glaxo thing or the Zantac thing 
have to do with Billy Dale and getting compensation to Billy Dale? Tell 
me, what in the world does it have to do with this bill that everybody 
agrees ought to be passed, including the President?
  Mr. PRYOR. Because it is based upon the same principle the Senator 
from Utah enunciated when he got up to speak. This is to right a wrong. 
The GATT issue is to right a wrong. I subscribe to that same issue.
  Mr. HATCH. Well, there are two sides to that issue. Thus far, the 
Judiciary Committee has taken a side that the distinguished Senator 
from Arkansas does not agree with. The fact is, there is a time to 
debate that bill. Let us bring the bill up and have a full-fledged 
debate, and I think everybody will realize there is much merit as to 
what the Judiciary Committee did.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. BREAUX. I ask unanimous consent that the time before the recesses 
be extended for 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________