[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 101 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7626-S7630]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 2937

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 380, H.R. 2937, 
relating to the White House Travel Office. This provides for the 
reimbursement of attorney's 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; further, that a 
substitute amendment, which is at the desk, offered by Senator Hatch, 
be offered and agreed to, the bill be deemed read the third time and 
passed, as amended, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. We have 
not seen this amendment, to my knowledge. I do not know that anyone has 
shared it with us. I have not seen it. But I say that, beyond the issue 
of the Hatch amendment, there are Members

[[Page S7627]]

on this side who believe that it is important that we have a good 
debate about this bill and about this issue. They have amendments that 
they may be interested in offering. They want the opportunity to offer 
those amendments, or to at least have the right to offer them at some 
point.
  So we would not be in a position to agree today to pass this piece of 
legislation. We would need to look at the Hatch amendment. We need the 
opportunity, at least, to offer amendments. I think it is important 
that that be done.
  So, on that basis, we object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to yield to the distinguished 
Senator from Utah, the manager of this legislation, and just note that 
this was brought up and debated for a period of time. I was under the 
impression that the Hatch amendment was available. I have a copy. I 
know the other side does have it now. I would like to hear from Senator 
Hatch on this matter. If, after review, perhaps they find that they 
could then agree, then we would be prepared to ask for unanimous 
consent later today to get this matter taken up and considered.
  I yield to the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the minority has had this amendment for a 
long time. Frankly, all it does is it takes the House bill, which would 
reimburse Billy Dale for his attorney's fees incurred in the criminal 
matter. Our amendment makes it clear that we are only reimbursing him 
for those attorney's fees, not for any congressional appearances; nor 
are we reimbursing anybody else for any congressional appearances. It 
clarifies and, I think, refines the bill so that it can be sent back to 
the House. I believe they will take that in an instant because there is 
a terrific injustice here. It is time to solve it. It got embroiled 
within the minimum wage debate. This is one of the reasons why many of 
us on our side agreed to go ahead with the minimum wage, which I 
believe the distinguished Senator from South Dakota and others on that 
side believe was a victory for them yesterday. I thought that once the 
minimum wage problem was solved, there would be absolutely nobody in 
this Chamber who would not want to resolve what is really a tremendous 
injustice to a person who has been treated very badly. I do not believe 
there is anybody here who would really object to this bill.
  Let me just say this. In the wake of this FBI matter, Mr. Dale and 
his colleagues have found themselves in the news once again. After 
trying to put the circumstances of their firings behind them, it was 
discovered that Mr. Dale's FBI file was requested by the White House 
Security Office after--let me repeat, after--he was fired--7 months 
after--and right before he was indicted. It appears that the Travel 
Office seven were not only fired unjustifiably, but in some cases their 
personal and private FBI background investigation files, or file 
summaries, were inappropriately requested and possibly reviewed.
  I find it outrageous--as I think most others do on both sides of the 
aisle--that the Clinton White House would have fired these public 
servants in such an insensitive and unfair manner and then improperly 
access private information on some of them--especially Mr. Dale. That 
is how this whole Filegate thing has arisen. When they found that long 
after they fired this man, and had done so inappropriately, and then 
intended to indict and prosecute him unjustly, they got these special 
secret files from the FBI on Billy Dale.
  Now, this just simply demonstrates the arrogance of power of some in 
the White House with regard to this matter. To hold this up any 
further, even for amendments, it seems to me is something that really 
anybody has to think about, because previous attempts to pass this 
measure were stalled by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
even though many of them told me they support the measure, including 
the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, who was the one 
who spoke up when we first brought this bill to the floor.
  First, Members on that side wanted to offer the GATT amendment. That 
was Senator Pryor. Then there was the minimum wage amendment. I thought 
once we solved the minimum wage issue, we would surely be able to bring 
this up and get it done. Now the Senate has dealt with both the GATT 
program and the minimum wage. And now I understand, if I heard 
correctly my colleague from South Dakota, that some of his colleagues 
have a desire to bring up additional unspecified amendments. Indeed, I 
have to say it was requested at the staff level that the Senate delay 
consideration of this legislation until Mr. Dale responds to some 
questions submitted to him at the Filegate hearing.
  Give me a break. It is beginning to look like some of my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle want to kill this bill more than 
anything else. I do not know of anybody who is willing to stand up and 
say that. But that is what it looks like.
  If there are legitimate germane amendments to the Billy Dale bill, I 
encourage my colleagues to produce them. Let us review them.
  My hope would be to work something out and pass this bill today. And 
I am willing to work with my colleagues and accommodate it. This is a 
bill with the support of both Republicans and Democrats alike in the 
House.
  Frankly, I fail to see any reason for holding up a measure that would 
simply remedy the injustice resulting from the Travel Office firings. 
Throughout the lengthy debate on this bill, we must not forget that the 
bill is about Billy Dale and the other Travel Office employees. It is a 
bill that would reimburse their legal expenses for defending themselves 
against an unjust criminal investigation and prosecution.
  Let me again explain unbelievable circumstances for their 
terminations.
  After years of faithful service to the Government, Mr. Dale and other 
Travel Office employees were fired on May 19, 1993. In an attempt to 
justify the firings of these loyal public servants who worked for both 
Democrats and Republicans in the White House, the current White House 
met with and urged the FBI to investigate the Travel Office. The 
allegations brought against the Travel Office employees were conducted 
by those who had a vested interest in running the office themselves. If 
being fired was not tragic enough, the Department of Justice launched a 
Federal criminal investigation against the Travel Office employees.
  As I have said, Mr. Dale was subsequently indicted, and despite the 
weakness of the case against him and after only 2 hours of jury 
deliberations he was acquitted. Because of this questionable use of the 
Federal criminal justice system, Mr. Dale was forced to spend $500,000 
in legal fees. The other Travel Office employees collectively spent 
$200,000 in legal fees for their defense. And aside from the crushing 
financial burdens on these people, these individuals were also burdened 
and continue to be burdened with defending their reputations.
  The targeting of these dedicated public servants because they held 
positions coveted by political profiteers, I think, demands an 
appropriate response by this institution. And, although we can do 
absolutely nothing to restore their reputations, their dignity, and 
their faith in the White House, it is only just that the Congress do 
what it can do to rectify this wrong.
  By providing attorneys' fees we can at least financially make these 
Government employees whole--these innocent Government employees whole.
  That is why we are here. That is why we would like to do it. This 
bill will be a mere statement by Congress that there was clearly an 
arrogant abuse of power by White House officials against seven innocent 
employees in favor of some close to the President who stood to gain 
financially.
  It is one thing for the President to exercise his prerogative and 
dismiss them, it is another to do so and then concoct an investigation 
to justify dismissing them.
  And we should all be embarrassed by the way our Government treated 
these seven Travel Office employees, and we should make up for it by 
passing this measure today.
  One last thing: The President himself indicated that he would sign 
this bill. He knows that it was an injustice. I give him credit for 
that. And, frankly, it was his White House that caused these tragedies. 
And he is willing to sign the bill.

[[Page S7628]]

  There are other bills that the amendments can be added to that are 
nongermane. If there is something that is germane to this bill, bring 
it up. We will bring it up now. We will solve those problems. But we 
will right this tremendous injustice and wrong. And this is the time to 
do it.
  I am hoping that my colleague, the distinguished minority leader of 
the Senate, will recognize this. I hope that he can get the folks on 
his side to cooperate and get this measure passed once and for all and 
then let us go to battle on these other future issues at a later time.
  On this one I do not think there is that much opposition among 
anybody on the Senate floor. At least I have never heard one ounce of 
opposition to this bill to right these wrongs.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Utah 
raises a couple of points that I wish to take just a moment to respond 
to. I know there are others on the floor who want to go to the DOD 
bill.
  The Senator from Utah indicated that there are those who are asking 
questions from Dale in particular with regard to his legal fees, and 
that we were using that as the reason for holding this bill up. We are 
not using that as the reason. We have not said that until we get that 
information we are going to prevent the bill from coming to the floor. 
That is not our desire necessarily. But there are reports that Mr. Dale 
had a fee arrangement with his attorneys, and that fee arrangement was 
just a fraction of what this bill would provide with regard to 
reimbursement for legal fees. If that is the case, then to provide a 
fee or a reimbursement many times what the fee may have been for Mr. 
Dale it seems to us to be inappropriate.
  The second issue is how unprecedented the nature of this legislation 
really is. It is virtually unprecedented. I will not ask the 
distinguished Senator from Utah today if he can give me a list of all 
of those occasions when we have done this in the past. But I think he 
would be hard pressed to do that.
  Mr. HATCH. Will my colleague yield on that point?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.
  Mr. HATCH. I think it is unprecedented. Talk about unprecedented. It 
is unprecedented for the White House to order the investigation, which 
is what happened here.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I take back the floor. Let me just say 
that is not the case. And the Senator from Utah certainly knows is not 
the case. That is not what happened, and I hope we could make sure that 
the Record at least would be accurate as we address the circumstances 
involving this matter.
  But the issue is are we willing to establish a new precedent here; 
that every time somebody is investigated, every time somebody is found 
to be innocent of some charges, the Government then automatically 
reimburses that person for whatever legal fees they have incurred. If 
we are prepared to do that, I think this side would have a very 
significant list of people that we may want to address. Shall we do 
that for Congress as well? Where does it stop?
  I think all of this needs to be considered much more carefully than 
we have done thus far.
  We have amendments we want to talk about. We think a good debate may 
be in order before we set this precedent. Before we are asked to put 
our names on the line and vote affirmatively or negatively on this 
issue, ultimately I think a much better understanding of the facts and 
a far better understanding of the complications regarding the 
unprecedented nature of this legislation ought to be considered.

  So for those reasons, we are not prepared to go to the bill today.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. The minority leader is my friend. He knows that. I care 
for him. He is a very fine person. I have to tell you that I do not 
think anybody can come to the floor and say the White House in this 
instance did not do an injustice here; that they did not try to use the 
force of Government, the FBI, the Justice Department, and others to 
take apart a very, very good person, and others working with him who 
have worked for both Republican and Democrat administrations and to do 
it to take care of their own people.
  I have to correct the record with regard to that. I do not think 
anybody doubts that. It is pretty much admitted. Even the President 
said he would sign this bill. That was not easy for him because he was 
in essence saying that he recognized that this is terrifically wrong 
and that his people in the White House did it.
  This is what happened, on May 19, 1993 the White House fired all 
seven of these people. At least two of the individuals learned of their 
dismissal in the evening news that night. That is how they learned 
about 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 
the actual motivation for the firings. Certain people in the White 
House and outside of the White House --friends of this President hoping 
to advance their own financial interests--attempted to destroy the 
reputations of the Travel Office employees and take over the Travel 
Office business.
  This issue is not going away nor am I going to let it go away. It 
ought to be resolved. I am willing to say that the President has done 
what is right here in saying he will sign this bill. These same persons 
who did this to these seven Travel Office people used the White House 
staff members to initiate a baseless criminal investigation by the FBI. 
That is outrageous.
  If somebody in a Republican White House had done that, the fuss and 
furor would never end.
  We have tried just to resolve this problem in a dignified, reasonable 
way, and do it by paying their attorneys' fees that they incurred just 
for this unjust criminal investigation and trial.
  According to the congressional investigation, certain individuals in 
the White House and outside of the White House were responsible for 
these firings. Catherine Cornelius, a cousin of the President, employed 
at the White House, Harry Thomason, a personal friend of the President 
and First Lady, Darnell Martens, Mr. Thomason's business partner, and 
David Watkins, again--how often does he surface--assistant to the 
President for management and administration, these are the people who 
shoved it to these time-honored employees.
  In December 1992, discussions took place between Miss Cornelius and 
World Wide Travel--a very appropriate name--the agency that served the 
Clinton-Gore campaign, about the eventual takeover of the White House 
Travel Office business.
  In January 1993, Watkins hired Miss Cornelius--keep in mind, that is 
the cousin of the President--and soon thereafter, after he hired Miss 
Cornelius, the Travel Office began taking calls for Miss Cornelius as 
the new head of the Travel Office.
  In February 1993, Miss Cornelius provided Watkins with a proposal 
that would make her, the President's cousin, codirector of the White 
House Travel Office and would hire World Wide Travel, the Clinton-Gore 
campaign travel group, as the outside travel specialists.
  In April and May of 1993, 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, Miss Cornelius and Mr. 
Thomason pushed that World Wide Travel take over the Travel Office 
business of the White House and other offices in Government.
  In mid-May 1993, employees of the White House counsel's office, Miss 
Cornelius and others, met with the FBI regarding the Travel Office. 
Although the FBI was unsure that there was any evidence, or certainly 
enough evidence in existence to warrant a criminal investigation, 
William Kennedy, whose name constantly surfaces, former law partner of 
the First Lady's at the Rose Law Firm, who was then at the White House 
counsel's office, informed FBI bureau agents that a request for an FBI 
evaluation came from the highest levels of the White House.
  At this time, they determined that Peat Marwick and Mitchell, the 
accounting firm, 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.

[[Page S7629]]

  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 and employees. 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 then instructed Mr. Watkins to delete 
any reference to the FBI investigation from talking points on the 
firings. At 10 a.m. that morning, that very same morning, Watkins 
informed the Travel Office employees that they were fired because a 
review revealed gross mismanagement in the office. They were initially 
told that after all these years of service to this country, service to 
the White House, both Democrat and Republican administrations, that 
they had 2 hours to pack up 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 had 
been warned. She knew that what they had done was wrong. 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 the 17th, 
however. So you can see what we are dealing with here. 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--none--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 management weaknesses, we noted that the 
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.''
  The General Accounting Office further noted that ``the public 
acknowledgement of the criminal investigation had the effect of 
tarnishing the employees' ''--that is s apostrophe-- ``reputations and 
the existence of the criminal investigation caused the employees to 
retain legal counsel, reportedly at considerable expense.''
  Of course, as everybody in this body knows, Mr. Dale was the only 
Travel Office employee to be indicted, and it took a jury only 2 hours 
to acquit Mr. Dale after a lengthy 13-day trial.
  Mr. President, I sat on the Whitewater Committee. I have to say I was 
absolutely amazed at the improprieties and the wrongdoing and the other 
things that were really brought out. It was just a layer all across 
that event. Even so, it was very difficult to understand because there 
was just one thing after another, and I think people in this country 
are very mixed up about the Whitewater matter. They feel something is 
wrong, but it is so convoluted and complex, so filled with what some 
people call ``the sleaze factor'' that it is very difficult to point to 
any particular huge bubble in that sleaze. But one thing everybody in 
this country does understand and one thing that is not going to go 
away, certainly not until these people are reimbursed for their legal 
fees, will be the Billy Dale and the White House Travel Office matter.
  In all honesty, I do not think anybody knows that there was a 
tremendous arrogance of power in the White House that really brought 
about this improper action and these unjustified actions, what really 
were offensive actions in misusing the FBI and other forces of law 
enforcement to indict and prosecute a really fine man that everybody 
today feels somewhat guilty about.
  Let me tell you something. This is an appropriate case and one of the 
few that I can cite in the history of the country where the right thing 
to do is to reimburse these people for these reasonable costs. In all 
honesty, they have had even more legal fees because they have had to 
appear up here on Capitol Hill. My amendment however, would just 
correct the matter and make it very clear that the only reimbursement 
for attorneys fees that they can get through this legislation, the only 
reimbursement will be for what happened in that limited period of time 
when they were criminally prosecuted and unjustly persecuted, and I am 
using that word selectively, unjustly persecuted because of White House 
actions.
  I do not care whether it is a Republican White House or a Democrat 
White House; we ought to all be concerned about doing what is right for 
these people. In this case, it was a Democrat White House.
  This issue is not going to go away. We are still searching to get to 
the bottom of it. That is how the whole Filegate thing has come to 
pass. That is how we now find two political operatives, people who 
throughout their political careers have done opposition research, have 
spent their time trying to even sling mud at their own Democrat 
Presidential candidates--who were entrusted with the most sensitive, 
secret, FBI files pertaining to people who had patriotically served the 
White House for years and years, young people who no longer are going 
to go back, or certainly nobody expected them to go back but who 
believe to this day now that somebody, somewhere, especially since the 
reports of Mr. Marceca taking computer disks home with Filegate 
information on people, they are concerned that someday, sometime in the 
future when they want to serve the Government again some of these 
secret things that were in those files will be brought forth to smear 
them and their lives.
  I happen to know a lot about FBI files because, as chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, somebody who has been on that committee for 20 
years, we review these judgeship files all the time. Some of the best 
judges on the bench today during their younger years did things that 
were not quite right. Some of them abused drugs. Some of them had 
problems with alcohol. Some of them did things that, really, you would 
find reprehensible today and would stop them from holding these 
positions. But they, in the intervening years, straightened out their 
lives, repented, did the things that were right, and we confirmed them 
because it is what they are today that counts.
  But if somebody got hold of these files, which contain written down--
a bit like Mr. Aldrich's book--everything that is said, whether it is 
true or not, by people who have axes to grind, by people who are 
dishonest, by people who hate the nominee, by people who just plain are 
misinformed, if some of those matters came out, they could destroy the 
lives of some of these eminent people today who are doing terrific 
jobs, deserve our acclaim, deserve our support, and who, literally, are 
among the greatest people in our society today.
  All of us are sinners in the sense that all of us fall short of the 
glory of God. These files show that in many ways.
  Frankly, nobody to this day knows just what was taken out of those 
sensitive files. What we do know is that two people who had absolutely 
no qualifications, no credentials whatsoever, no training whatsoever, 
who were known to do opposition research--which is what politicians do, 
sometimes, to find out all they can about the other side; generally, it 
is called dirt digging--these people who were known to do this were 
placed in charge of that office, and one of them ordered up all these 
files that now are approaching almost 900 files. People thought it was 
only 307 at first, but now it is up to 900 files, and it may be more 
than that. We have no absolute way of knowing.
  We do not know what was taken out of those files, but we do know 
there were pink slips put in some of the files that indicate the guts 
had been taken out and been used somewhere in the White House, and then 
the testimony was they put the guts back in and pulled the pink slip 
out. So we do not know how many of those files were copied. We do not 
know how many of them were on Mr. Marceca's computer disk that he took 
home from the office, this low-level employee. We do not know any of 
that.

[[Page S7630]]

  What we do know is this. Senator DeConcini, at a very appropriate 
time here, was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. His top 
staffer in charge of security on that committee, and thus one of the 
top experts in the whole country on how you keep these files secure, 
conducted an investigation of the White House Security Office and found 
its operations seriously inadequate. Senator DeConcini wrote to the 
White House, telling them they better fix up this problem of security 
at the White House over FBI files and recommended they get somebody 
other than Mr. Livingstone and Mr. Marceca to take care of these 
matters and to get some people there who are trained in that area.
  As I understand it, Lloyd Cutler--for whom I have a lot of respect, 
who is certainly a brilliant White House counsel--agreed with the 
letter 2 years before all this surfaced, and still nothing was done.
  Now, we do not know who in the world hired Mr. Livingstone and Mr. 
Marceca, other than Mr. Stephanopoulos said, ``Well, it was Vincent 
Foster.'' Vincent Foster is no longer with us, tragically; tragically, 
now deceased. It is easy to blame somebody who is deceased, who cannot 
speak for himself. But we know there are others there who had something 
to do with hiring these two yo-yos and putting them in charge of these 
sensitive files.
  That is what is involved here. The only way all of that came out was 
because when the excellent chairman of the House Government Reform and 
Oversight Committee, Congressman Clinger, demanded papers that the 
White House refused to give, throwing up executive privilege. They 
refused to give those papers. Finally he forced them into giving 1,000 
of 3,000 pages that clearly were not covered by executive privilege. 
The White House tried to hold back on him. And, lo and behold, looming 
up out of all of those names was the name of Billy Dale, that for which 
they were looking, to see how badly treated this man and his associates 
were.

  Frankly, that is how this has all arisen. But it is not only Billy 
Dale, but all kinds of other former White House heavyweight 
Republicans, as well as many others who were not.
  People all over the country are now asking, when is this all going to 
end? When is the Federal Government going to quit being the all-seeing 
eye into the backgrounds and personal matters of its citizens? How can 
we protect ourselves from a ``1984''-type government that noses into 
everything that we do or have done? All of that came out of the Billy 
Dale matter.
  To my colleagues on the other side, I am going to give them just a 
little bit of advice. I am not used to giving them advice, but I will. 
This is one you would not want to play around with. This is one that, 
it seems to me, would be well to pass. Do what is right and get rid of 
it. I think the White House, my friends on the other side and everybody 
else will be much better off if we do.
  If this is not resolved and resolved quite soon, I have to admit, 
this is never going to end, because it is a mess. It is wrong. I, for 
one, am very, very upset about it. I hope my friends on the other side 
will see the clarity of getting rid of this matter and going on to the 
business of the U.S. Senate.
  I hope we will not have any more desires to have nongermane 
amendments after we have gone through this fiasco of the minimum wage, 
which was ostensibly the reason for holding up the Billy Dale matter. 
If they have germane amendments, let us face them. Bring them out here, 
we will debate them, we will vote on them, and whoever wins, wins; 
whoever loses, loses. And we will pass this bill and do what is right, 
and, hopefully, when the President signs it, it will put it to bed. 
That is what I would like to do.
  I know I have taken a little longer than I care to take on this, but 
this is something I feel very deeply about. I have gotten acquainted 
with Billy Dale through the hearing process and so forth. He is a very 
fine man. He did not deserve what happened to him. We should do what is 
right in rectifying this wrong that started in the White House, which 
misused the criminal process to abuse and persecute and, ultimately, 
prosecute this man at a huge cost, probably the cost of losing his 
whole estate under the circumstances.
  So I apologize to my colleagues for taking so much time. I do feel 
deeply about this. I know my friend from Hawaii and others have 
important business to go ahead with.
  I yield the floor at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, first, let me commend my colleague from 
Utah. I think he made a very able, very cogent presentation with 
respect to the merits of reimbursing someone who found himself in a 
situation, through no fault of his own, having to spend hundreds of 
thousands of dollars. I certainly think we should move with speed to 
deal with that.

                          ____________________