[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.
____________________