Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 124 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10285-S10321]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1997

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

Amendment No. 5224, As Modified

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, it is my understanding we will each use
about 5 minutes, and then I think the two leaders want to propose a
unanimous-consent request after that. So if we can proceed on that
basis, would that be satisfactory with my colleague?
Mr. THOMAS. That is fine.
Mr. GLENN. I ask unanimous consent that we have 5 minutes on a side
to wrap this up, and then we will probably go to a vote after that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I want to respond briefly to the comments
my colleague made a moment ago. This is a broad act. He said the
Economy Act of 1982 is really not working and that is one reason we are
putting this in. I don't like putting other legislation that might not
work on top of legislation he says is already not working. Let's make
work the legislation that is in law now. I am all for that.
Basically, it does what we are proposing here. In fact, I have a copy
of that Economy Act of 1982 here, and one of the things provided under
section 1335 under ``agency agreements,'' part 4 of paragraph (A) says:
``The head of the agency decides ordered goods or services cannot be
provided as conveniently or cheaply by a commercial enterprise already
required.''

I agree that should be lived up to. So then we come in with the
legislation that my colleague and friend, Senator Thomas, says is not
as broad as I am interpreting it to be, and yet the words in it say
that ``except as provided in subsection (B)''--which I will get to in a
moment--``none of the funds appropriated under any other act may be
used by OMB or any other agency to publish, promulgate or enforce any
policy, regulation, circular or any rule or authority in any other form
that would permit any Federal agency to provide a commercially
available property or service to any other Department of Government
unless the policy, regulation, circular or other rule meets the
requirements in subsection (B).''
Subsection (B) says 120 days after this OMB will prescribe
regulations as required, subject to the following, which shall include
the following: A requirement for comparison between the costs of
providing the property or service concerned through the agency
concerned and the cost of providing such property or service through
the private sector.
That is a mammoth requirement for any law or regulation to come out
under. The (B) part of that, which is the last part, is a requirement
for cost and performance benchmarks relating to the property or service
provided relative to comparable services provided by other Government
agencies and contractors permitting the oversight of this--and so on--
agency concerned with the Office of Management and Budget.
That is a very, very broad-reaching, extremely broad-reaching,
amendment.
I would say it is true, it is already covered under the Economy Act
of 1982, as I quoted just a moment ago, and the best thing I would
advise is we bring this to the attention of Mr. Koskinen, who is going
to appear before the committee next week, that we ask his opinion about
how broad-gauged this is and why he is not already enforcing the
Economy Act of 1982. That is the way to proceed, as I see it, in good
Government, not just to automatically pass something that does the same
thing that is not being adhered to in earlier legislation.
Mr. President, I suggest we have that as our method of procedure. I
am all for efficiency in Government, but I am not just for passing one
law and covering up deficiencies in carrying out a law that is already
on the books and should be adhered to.

[[Page S10286]]

I reserve the remainder of my time. How much time do I have
remaining, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think for the interest of Senators, as
I understand it, we are about to have a vote. Does the Senator from
Wyoming know approximately what length of additional time he will need
to complete his remarks?
Mr. THOMAS. I believe I probably have about 2 minutes, and Senator
Glenn has 1\1/2\ minutes. So I would guess less than 5 minutes.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, assuming that is
agreeable to the majority leader, to have the vote on the amendment
offered by the Senator from Wyoming no later than 6:20.
Mr. THOMAS. It is fine with me.
Mr. GLENN. That will be fine.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if that request was not made, I enter that
request now. I ask unanimous consent that we have that vote not later
than 6:20, and before if all time is yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming has 2 minutes 5
seconds remaining.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would agree with the Senator if what he
is saying were the case, and I think it is not. We have indicated that
the statute requires under the Efficiency Act what we are asking here:
that there be this effort to communicate in the private sector and
measure that cost.
The problem is this one right here. This is March 1996, called the
``Revised Supplemental Handbook, Performance of Commercial Activities,
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget.''
It says:

The cost comparison requirements of this supplemental
handbook will not apply to existing or renewed ISSA's or the
consolidation of commercial services.

So it is not just a function of the law not being lived up to but, in
fact, is a change that has been put in place by OMB. So that is what we
are seeking to do. We are not seeking to change the law. We are not
seeking to change the basic operation of this statute, but we are
saying that there are changes made by Executive order which remove that
requirement that those activities that are being carried on by one
agency for another, not the activities for themselves, one agency for
another, that the requirement continue to exist as it has in the past,
that we see if there are commercial activities available at a lesser,
more efficient cost.
This is simply an effort to put back in place the requirement that
has been in place for a very long time, that for the activities that
are acquired from another agency within Government, that there be an
effort to determine if it can be done more cheaply, more efficiently in
the private sector.
This is not a new idea. This is an idea that now exists in law but
has been taken out of the law by OMB. This would put it back. It is not
broad. I hope very much that the Senator from Ohio, and his committee,
will take a look at this whole broad thing. But in the meantime, I
think we need to return where we were so that private industry can be
part of this idea.
We have used it for a very long time. It has to do with being more
efficient. It has to do with good Government. It has to do with
strengthening the private sector. I certainly urge my colleagues to
vote aye.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time, and
assume my colleague does.
Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator
McConnell as a cosponsor to amendment No. 5232.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 5224, as modified,
offered by the Senator from Wyoming. The yeas and nays have been
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth] is
necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is
absent because of family illness.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 39, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 285 Leg.]

YEAS--59

Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Faircloth
Feinstein
Frahm
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kohl
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--39

Akaka
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Ford
Glenn
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Pryor
Roth

The amendment (No. 5224), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SHELBY. I ask unanimous consent that the pending committee
amendments be temporarily laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 5249 through Amendment No. 5255, En Bloc

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I send a group of amendments, en bloc, to
the desk and ask for their immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] proposes amendments,
en bloc, numbered 5249 through amendment No. 5255.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 5249

(Purpose: To provide for the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Affairs to continue operations)

Page 93 after line 19 insert the following new section:
Sec. . Notwithstanding the provision under the heading
``Advisory Commission on intergovernmental relations'' under
title IV of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law 104-52; 109
Stat. 480), the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations may continue in existence during fiscal year 1997
and each fiscal year thereafter.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 5250

(Purpose: To strike section 404)

On page 60, line 19 strike all through line 21.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 5251

(Purpose: To provide for an audit by Inspector Generals of
administratively uncontrollable overtime practices, to revise
guidelines for such practices, and for other purposes)

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following
new section:

[[Page S10287]]

Sec. . (a) No later than 45 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of each Federal
department or agency that uses administratively
uncontrollable overtime in the pay of any employee shall--
(1) conduct an audit on the use of administratively
uncontrollable overtime by employees of such department or
agency, which shall include--
(A) an examination of the policies, extent, costs, and
other relevant aspects of the use of administratively
uncontrollable overtime at the department or agency; and
(B) a determination of whether the eligibility criteria of
the department or agency and payment of administratively
uncontrollable overtime comply with Federal statutory and
regulatory requirements; and
(2) submit a report of the findings and conclusions of such
audit to--
(A) the Office of Personnel Management;
(B) the Governmental Affairs Committee of the Senate; and
(C) the Government Reform and Oversight Committee of the
House of Representatives.
(b) No later than 30 days after the submission of the
report under subsection (a), the Office of Personnel
Management shall issue revised guidelines to all Federal
departments and agencies that--
(1) limit the use of administratively uncontrollable
overtime to employees meeting the statutory intent of section
5545(c)(2) of title 5, United States Code; and
(2) expressly prohibit the use of administratively
uncontrollable overtime for--
(A) customary or routine work duties; and
(B) work duties that are primarily administrative in
nature, or occur in noncompelling circumstances.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment will address the abuses of
Administratively Uncontrolled Overtime--AUO--throughout the Federal
Government.
The costs to taxpayers of AUO misuse, estimated at $323 million at a
single Federal agency since 1990, are significant. With improper
oversight, AUO is likely to be costing the Treasury tens of millions of
dollars a year. This amendment will empower the Office of Personnel
Management [OPM] to stop these abuses.
First, it directs the Inspector General [IG] of each agency that
utilizes AUO to audit its use and cost. The findings of these audits
must be reported to the Congress and the Office of Personnel Management
within 45 days.
Second, OPM shall review these IG audits, and issue revised
guidelines to the respective agencies to limit the use of AUO to its
statutory intent. These strengthened guidelines shall prohibit the use
of AUO for routine or inappropriate work duties.
The amendment directs OPM to issue these new guidelines, to prevent
the ongoing misuse of AUO, within 30 days of receiving the Inspector
General audits.
For my colleagues who, like myself, have not been acutely aware of
the details and minutiae of Federal overtime policies, let me briefly
describe AUO and how it can readily be fixed on behalf of taxpayers in
this appropriations bill.
``Administratively Uncontrolled Overtime'' was authorized by Congress
to pay overtime to law enforcement officers for vital investigative
duties that require them to work irregular and unscheduled hours--
pursuing suspects, undercover work, special investigative operations,
et cetera. That makes sense. Agency regulations stipulate that AUO
should be reserved for work duties that are ``compelling'' and where it
would be negligent for officers to stop their enforcement actions.
What has been going on, however, for too many of the 6,300 employees
receiving AUO, is that it has turned into a unjustified salary and
retirement supplement for the most routine work duties imaginable. And
that makes no sense whatsoever for taxpayers.
I'd like to describe the abuses of AUO that occurred in a single
Federal agency in my State, as revealed by a selfless Federal employee
who stood much to lose by uncovering this waste.
One Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] officer in Arizona
reported that every single officer and supervisor at his facility was
receiving the maximum AUO possible, despite the fact that ``In two
years . . . not one legitimately qualifying AUO hour has been worked in
my department.''
Mr. President, somehow those duties don't sound like ``hot pursuit''
to me. They certainly are necessary, but they do not meet the statutory
criteria for AUO. This is not an isolated problem of mere local
concern. Both the Inspector General and the INS's top policymakers have
recognized this ongoing abuse of AUO.
The INS investigated the use of AUO at a detention facility in
Arizona and found that: ``None of the work performed [in Florence] met
the criteria for AUO, because the overtime hours could be
administratively controlled.''
The Inspector General at the Department of Justice then further
investigated this INS facility, and the IG's findings provide the
perfect rationale for this amendment. The IG stated that ``[W]e
encountered no information [at the INS detention center] to demonstrate
efforts to follow up on or implement'' the INS's own recommendations.
The IG recommended that ``The issue of AUO needs to be systematically
addressed.'' That is exactly what this amendment would accomplish.
I would like to add that ``Citizens Against Government Waste'' have
endorsed this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
I ask unanimous consent that some accompanying material be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Sept. 11, 1996]

INS Accused of Tolerating Citizenship Testing Fraud

(By William Branigin)

The Immigration and Naturalization Service came under fire
yesterday from congressional Republicans over allegations of
fraud in the testing of new citizenship applicants and the
payment of millions of dollars in overtime to federal law
enforcement officers.
In a hearing of the House Government Reform and Oversight
subcommittee on national security Republican members assailed
what they described as a ``controversial Clinton
administration program,'' called Citizenship USA, that has
streamlined naturalization procedures and helped produce
record numbers of new citizens this year.
Rep. Mark Edward Souder (R-Ind.) charged that a program in
which the INS licenses private organizations to test
applicants on U.S. civics and English proficiency has led to
``serious instances of testing fraud in the citizenship
process.'' He said the INS ``has done a very poor job of * *
* cracking down on testing fraud'' and suggested that the
Clinton administration is pushing naturalization as part of a
plan to enlist large numbers of new Democratic voters in time
for the November elections.
T. Alexander Aleinikoff, executive associate commissioner
of the INS for programs, rejected those charges. He said the
agency has tightened monitoring of the privatized testing,
which began under the previous Republican administration, and
defended the Citizenship USA program as a needed response to
an upsurge of applicants that threatened to overwhelm the
naturalization system.
While Republicans see politics behind the processing of
this year's record 1 million-plus citizenship applicants,
administration officials regard the subcommittee's
investigation itself as politically motivated.
Among the witnesses at yesterday's hearing was Jewell
Elghazali, who formerly worked in Dallas for Naturalization
Assistance Services, Inc., one of six entities authorized by
INS to test immigrants on civics and English as part of the
naturalization process.
``There is a lot of fraud going on'' in the programs, she
testified. When she alerted a superior in the company to
indications of cheating on tests administered by affiliates,
she was fired, she said.
Elghazali said that in grading tests during her five months
at the firm, she found numerous cases in which the written
answers of different applicants were in the same handwriting
and responses to multi-choice questions--including wrong
answers--were identical. She said that in many cases,
applicants who had passed the test could not speak English
when they called to inquire about the results. Some Spanish
speakers became irate when there was no one in the office who
could respond to them in their native language, she said.
Paul W. Roberts, the chief executive officer of
Naturalization Assistance Services, told the subcommittee
that the firm has ``acted swiftly to revoke all licensees
discovered engaging in improprieties.'' He said the for-
profit company has shut down 43 of its test sites as a result
of its own monitoring and argued that, in any case, passing
the standardized test does not automatically guarantee
citizenship for an applicant, who must still pass an
interview with an INS examiner.
INS Commissioner Doris M. Meissner acknowledged that
``there have been problems'' with the company, which has been
warned that it faces suspension unless cleared by an INS
review. ``If we need to suspend them, we will,'' she said.
But she insisted that ``there is no validity to the notion
that people are becoming citizens today who would not have 10
years ago'' because of a lowering of standards. She said
citizenship requirements have remained unchanged.
In a separate news conference yesterday, Sen. John McCain
(R-Ariz.) called for a congressional investigation into
alleged abuses

[[Page S10288]]

by the INS and other government agencies of a type of
overtime pay. He cited a report by a watchdog group, Citizens
Against Government Waste, that the INS has spent $323 million
on ``administratively uncontrollable overtime'' since 1990,
much of it in violation of regulations.
The overtime pay, amounting to as much as 25 percent of
many employees' salaries, has become an ``entitlement
program'' that wastes tens of millions of dollars a year, the
watchdog group charged.
While the overtime is supposed to compensate law
enforcement officers for working long hours on investigations
or surveillance, it has been used routinely to pay for
mundane duties such as delivering mail, guarding prisoners
during meal times and substituting for absent employees, the
citizens group charged. Besides the INS, ``administratively
uncontrollable overtime'' has been used in the departments of
justice, defense, interior and agriculture, the group said.
Meissner said that in principle, the overtime category ``is
a very good deal for the taxpayers.'' But she conceded that
there has been a tendency to misuse it as ``an ongoing
bonus'' and vowed renewed efforts to ensure it is properly
managed.
____

[From the Tribune, Sept. 2, 1996]

INS To Review Overtime Policies After Charges of Abuse

(By the Associated Press)

FLORENCE.--The Immigration and Naturalization Service will
review its policies for filing overtime after government and
civic groups showed it improperly spent millions of dollars
on overtime.
The agency's decision followed criticism by U.S. Sen. John
McCain and a citizens watchdog group, which released a report
last week estimating that the INS office here spent $60
million on overtime last year alone.
The extra payments allow officers to pad their pensions and
up their salaries by as much as 25 percent, according to the
Citizens Against Government Waste.
At issue is special pay called Administratively
Uncontrollable Overtime (AUO). The fund was created to
compensate federal officers for duties that require irregular
hours, such as surveillance or undercover work.
Federal rules say such overtime can be used only for
``uncontrollable'' overtime--work that can't be regulated or
routinely scheduled by supervisors.
According to government reports, the INS managers in
Florence are using the fund for day-to-day duties, such as
delivering mail, guarding prisoners during meals, going to
court and filling in for absent employees.
Documents obtained by The Arizona Republic show a 1995 INS
probe and another in April 1996 by the Justice Department's
Office of the Inspector General concluded the practice being
abused.
``None of the work performed in Florence met the criteria
for AUO because the overtime hours could be administratively
controlled,'' the 1995 INS report said.
Virginia Kice, spokeswoman for the INS Western Region, said
the agency is aware of the concerns and is conducting a
review of the policy.
``We want to be sure that whatever we do is not only
appropriate, that it's prudent, it's responsible and it won't
have a negative impact on our enforcement operation,'' she
said.
According to John Raidt, McCain's legislative director,
such abuse is likely rampant in government agencies. The
special overtime is available for employees of at least four
agencies: the Justice Department, which includes INS; the
Defense Department; the Department of Interior; and the
Department of Agriculture.
McCain plans to amend a Senate appropriations bill to place
tighter restrictions on such overtime and will ask for
hearings this fall before the Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee, Raidt said.
Critics say INS supervisors have an incentive to keep
paying the special overtime. If managers supervise employees
who qualify for the extra pay, then the managers also qualify
for the money, according to federal guidelines.
____

Amendment No. 5252

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. . Notwithstanding section 8116 of title 5, United
States Code, and in addition to any payment made under 5
U.S.C. 8101 et seq., beginning in fiscal year 1997 and
thereafter, the head of any department or agency is
authorized to pay from appropriations made available to the
department or agency a death gratuity to the personal
representative (as that term is defined by applicable law) of
a civilian employee of that department or agency whose death
resulted from an injury sustained in the line of duty on or
after August 2, 1990: Provided, That payments made pursuant
to this section, in combination with the payments made
pursuant to sections 8133(f) and 8134(a) of such title 5 and
section 312 of Public Law 103-332 (108 Stat. 2537), may not
exceed a total of $10,000 per employee.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, my amendment is quite simple. It
increases the reimbursement for funeral and burial costs and specific
related expenses to $10,000 for Federal civilian employees who die as
result of injuries sustained in the performance of duty. This amendment
would apply to the dedicated civil servants who were tragically killed
in the line of duty while accompanying Commerce Secretary Ron Brown on
his trade mission to Bosnia and Croatia. And it would apply to the
survivors of those Federal civilian employees who died during the
bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.
Under current law, Federal civilian employees who die in the
performance of duty receive only a $1,000 reimbursement for funeral and
burial costs, and related expenses. This amount was set in 1960, and it
has not been adjusted since that time.
This is not the case for military personnel. In 1990, at the
beginning of the gulf war, Congress increased death-related benefits
for the survivors of the military personnel killed in the line of duty.
Military survivors are currently provided slightly more than $10,000
for funeral and burial costs.
My amendment recognizes that civilian employees are no less dedicated
and they are all too often called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice
in the service of the United States. Further, I should note that this
amendment does not require additional appropriations. It provides the
discretion to agency heads to pay these increased benefits from
existing appropriations.
Mr. President, in short, this amendment provides for equity and
updates current law. This is a good amendment that I believe all my
colleagues should support.
I urge its adoption.

amendment no. 5253

(Purpose: To provide for training of explosive detection canines)

At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following
new section:

SEC. . EXPLOSIVES DETECTION CANINE PROGRAM.

(a) Authorization.--
(1) The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to
establish scientific certification standards for explosives
detection canines, and shall provide, on a reimbursable
basis, for the certification of explosives detection canines
employed by federal agencies, or other agencies providing
explosives detection services at airports in the United
States.
(2) The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish an
explosives detection canine training program for the training
of canines for explosives detection at airports in the United
States.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
the purposes of this section.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 5254

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

SEC. . DESIGNATION OF MARK O. HATFIELD UNITED STATES
COURTHOUSE.

The United States Courthouse under construction at 1030
Southwest 3d Avenue in Portland, Oregon, shall be known and
designated as the ``Mark O. Hatfield United States
Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,
or other record of the United States to the courthouse
referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to
the ``Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This section shall take effect on January 2, 1997.
____

amendment No. 5255

(Purpose: To provide for the establishment of uniform accounting
systems, standards, and reporting systems in the Federal Government,
and for other purposes)

At the end of the bill, add the following new title:
TITLE ____--FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT

SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Federal Financial
Management Improvement Act of 1996''.

SEC. ____02. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) Much effort has been devoted to strengthening Federal
internal accounting controls in the past. Although progress
has been made in recent years, Federal accounting standards
have not been uniformly implemented in financial management
systems for agencies.
(2) Federal financial management continues to be seriously
deficient, and Federal financial management and fiscal
practices have failed to--
(A) identify costs fully;
(B) reflect the total liabilities of congressional actions;
and
(C) accurately report the financial condition of the
Federal Government.
(3) Current Federal accounting practices do not accurately
report financial results of the Federal Government or the
full costs of programs and activities. The continued use of

[[Page S10289]]

these practices undermines the Government's ability to
provide credible and reliable financial data and encourages
already widespread Government waste, and will not assist in
achieving a balanced budget.
(4) Waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government
undermine the confidence of the American people in the
Government and reduce the Federal Government's ability to
address vital public needs adequately.
(5) To rebuild the accountability and credibility of the
Federal Government, and restore public confidence in the
Federal Government, agencies must incorporate accounting
standards and reporting objectives established for the
Federal Government into their financial management systems so
that all the assets and liabilities, revenues, and
expenditures or expenses, and the full costs of programs and
activities of the Federal Government can be consistently and
accurately recorded, monitored, and uniformly reported
throughout the Federal Government.
(6) Since its establishment in October 1990, the Federal
Accounting Standards Advisory Board (hereinafter referred to
as the ``FASAB'') has made substantial progress toward
developing and recommending a comprehensive set of accounting
concepts and standards for the Federal Government. When the
accounting concepts and standards developed by FASAB are
incorporated into Federal financial management systems,
agencies will be able to provide cost and financial
information that will assist the Congress and financial
managers to evaluate the cost and performance of Federal
programs and activities, and will therefore provide important
information that has been lacking, but is needed for improved
decisionmaking by financial managers and the Congress.
(7) The development of financial management systems with
the capacity to support these standards and concepts will,
over the long term, improve Federal financial management.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are to--
(1) provide for consistency of accounting by an agency from
one fiscal year to the next, and uniform accounting standards
throughout the Federal Government;
(2) require Federal financial management systems to support
full disclosure of Federal financial data, including the full
costs of Federal programs and activities, to the citizens,
the Congress, the President, and agency management, so that
programs and activities can be considered based on their full
costs and merits;
(3) increase the accountability and credibility of Federal
financial management;
(4) improve performance, productivity and efficiency of
Federal Government financial management;
(5) establish financial management systems to support
controlling the cost of Federal Government;
(6) build upon and complement the Chief Financial Officers
Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-576; 104 Stat. 2838), the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Public Law
103-62; 107 Stat. 285), and the Government Management Reform
Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-356; 108 Stat. 3410); and
(7) increase the capability of agencies to monitor
execution of the budget by more readily permitting reports
that compare spending of resources to results of activities.

SEC. ____03. IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
IMPROVEMENTS.

(a) In General.--Each agency shall implement and maintain
financial management systems that comply with Federal
financial management systems requirements, applicable Federal
accounting standards, and the United States Government
Standard General Ledger at the transaction level.
(b) Priority.--Each agency shall give priority in funding
and provide sufficient resources to implement this title.
(c) Audit Compliance Finding.--
(1) In general.--Each audit required by section 3521(e) of
title 31, United States Code, shall report whether the agency
financial management systems comply with the requirements of
subsection (a).
(2) Content of reports.--When the person performing the
audit required by section 3521(e) of title 31, United States
Code, reports that the agency financial management systems do
not comply with the requirements of subsection (a), the
person performing the audit shall include in the report on
the audit--
(A) the name and position of any officer or employee
responsible for the financial management systems that have
been found not to comply with the requirements of subsection
(a);
(B) all facts pertaining to the failure to comply with the
requirements of subsection (a), including--
(i) the nature and extent of the noncompliance;
(ii) the primary reason or cause of the noncompliance;
(iii) any official responsible for the noncompliance; and
(iv) any relevant comments from any responsible officer or
employee; and
(C) a statement with respect to the recommended remedial
actions and the timeframes to implement such actions.
(d) Compliance Determination.--
(1) In general.--No later than the date described under
paragraph (2), the Director, acting through the Controller of
the Office of Federal Financial Management, shall determine
whether the financial management systems of an agency comply
with the requirements of subsection (a). Such determination
shall be based on--
(A) a review of the report on the applicable agency-wide
audited financial statement;
(B) the agency comments on such report; and
(C) any other information the Director considers relevant
and appropriate.
(2) Date of determination.--The determination under
paragraph (1) shall be made no later than 90 days after the
earlier of--
(A) the date of the receipt of an agency-wide audited
financial statement; or
(B) the last day of the fiscal year following the year
covered by such statement.
(e) Compliance Implementation.--
(1) In general.--If the Director determines that the
financial management systems of an agency do not comply with
the requirements of subsection (a), the head of the agency,
in consultation with the Director, shall establish a
remediation plan that shall include the resources, remedies,
and intermediate target dates necessary to bring the agency's
financial management systems into compliance.
(2) Time period for compliance.--A remediation plan shall
bring the agency's financial management systems into
compliance no later than 2 years after the date on which the
Director makes a determination under paragraph (1), unless
the agency, with concurrence of the Director--
(A) determines that the agency's financial management
systems are so deficient as to preclude compliance with the
requirements of subsection (a) within 2 years;
(B) specifies the most feasible date for bringing the
agency's financial management systems into compliance with
the requirements of subsection (a); and
(C) designates an official of the agency who shall be
responsible for bringing the agency's financial management
systems into compliance with the requirements of subsection
(a) by the date specified under subparagraph (B).
(3) Transfer of funds for certain improvements.--For an
agency that has established a remediation plan under
paragraph (2), the head of the agency, to the extent provided
in an appropriation and with the concurrence of the Director,
may transfer not to exceed 2 percent of available agency
appropriations to be merged with and to be available for the
same period of time as the appropriation or fund to which
transferred, for priority financial management system
improvements. Such authority shall be used only for priority
financial management system improvements as identified by the
head of the agency, with the concurrence of the Director, and
in no case for an item for which Congress has denied funds.
The head of the agency shall notify Congress 30 days before
such a transfer is made pursuant to such authority.
(4) Report if noncompliance within time period.--If an
agency fails to bring its financial management systems into
compliance within the time period specified under paragraph
(2), the Director shall submit a report of such failure to
the Committees on Governmental Affairs and Appropriations of
the Senate and the Committees on Government Reform and
Oversight and Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
The report shall include--
(A) the name and position of any officer or employee
responsible for the financial management systems that have
been found not to comply with the requirements of subsection
(a);
(B) the facts pertaining to the failure to comply with the
requirements of subsection (a), including the nature and
extent of the noncompliance, the primary reason or cause for
the failure to comply, and any extenuating circumstances;
(C) a statement of the remedial actions needed; and
(D) a statement of any administrative action to be taken
with respect to any responsible officer or employee.
(f) Personal Responsibility.--Any financial officer or
program manager who knowingly and willfully commits, permits,
or authorizes material deviation from the requirements of
subsection (a) may be subject to administrative disciplinary
action, suspension from duty, or removal from office.

SEC. ____04. APPLICATION TO CONGRESS AND THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.

(a) In General.--The Federal financial management
requirements of this title may be adopted by--
(1) the Senate by resolution as an exercise of the
rulemaking power of the Senate;
(2) the House of Representatives by resolution as an
exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of
Representatives; or
(3) the Judicial Conference of the United States by
regulation for the judicial branch.
(b) Study and Report.--No later than October 1, 1997--
(1) the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House
of Representatives shall jointly conduct a study and submit a
report to Congress on how the offices and committees of the
Senate and the House of Representatives, and all offices and
agencies of the legislative branch may achieve compliance
with financial management and accounting standards in a
manner comparable to the requirements of this title; and
(2) the Chief Justice of the United States shall conduct a
study and submit a report to Congress on how the judiciary
may achieve compliance with financial management and
accounting standards in a manner comparable to the
requirements of this title.

[[Page S10290]]

SEC. ____05. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Reports by Director.--No later than March 31 of each
year, the Director shall submit a report to the Congress
regarding implementation of this title. The Director may
include the report in the financial management status report
and the 5-year financial management plan submitted under
section 3512(a)(1) of title 31, United States Code.
(b) Reports by the Comptroller General.--No later than
October 1, 1997, and October 1, of each year thereafter, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall report to the
appropriate committees of the Congress concerning--
(1) compliance with the requirements of section ____03(a)
of this title, including whether the financial statements of
the Federal Government have been prepared in accordance with
applicable accounting standards; and
(2) the adequacy of uniform accounting standards for the
Federal Government.

SEC. ____06. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) Audits by Agencies.--Section 3521(f)(1) of title 31,
United States Code, is amended in the first sentence by
inserting ``and the Controller of the Office of Federal
Financial Management'' before the period.
(b) Financial Management Status Report.--Section 3512(a)(2)
of title 31, United States Code, is amended by--
(1) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (F);
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
``(E) a listing of agencies whose financial management
systems do not comply substantially with the requirements of
the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996, the
period of time that such agencies have not been in
compliance, and a summary statement of the efforts underway
to remedy the noncompliance; and''.

SEC. ____07. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this title:
(1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' means a department or
agency of the United States Government as defined in section
901(b) of title 31, United States Code.
(2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget.
(3) Federal accounting standards.--The term ``Federal
accounting standards'' means applicable accounting
principles, standards, and requirements consistent with
section 902(a)(3)(A) of title 31, United States Code, and
includes concept statements with respect to the objectives of
Federal financial reporting.
(4) Financial management systems.--The term ``financial
management systems'' includes the financial systems and the
financial portions of mixed systems necessary to support
financial management, including automated and manual
processes, procedures, controls, data, hardware, software,
and support personnel dedicated to the operation and
maintenance of system functions.
(5) Financial system.--The term ``financial system''
includes an information system, comprised of one or more
applications, that is used for--
(A) collecting, processing, maintaining, transmitting, or
reporting data about financial events;
(B) supporting financial planning or budgeting activities;
(C) accumulating and reporting costs information; or
(D) supporting the preparation of financial statements.
(6) Mixed system.--The term ``mixed system'' means an
information system that supports both financial and
nonfinancial functions of the Federal Government or
components thereof.

SEC. ____08. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This title shall take effect on October 1, 1996.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today I offer an amendment that has already
passed the Senate as a free-standing bill called the Federal Financial
Management Improvement Act of 1996 (S. 1130). This measure brings
urgent reforms to Federal financial management and restores
accountability to the Government. The Senate should include this
measure in the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government
appropriations bill because it is our best hope for enacting these
important reforms into law this year. There is very little time left in
this session and it is of the utmost importance that Congress send this
measure to the President before we leave town. However, I strongly
encourage efforts currently underway in the House Government Reform and
Oversight Committee to pass S. 1130. Chairman Clinger as well as
Government Management Subcommittee Chairman Horn are working hard on
the bill and I hope they are able to get it through the House of
Representatives during these busy weeks.
Mr. President, I'll make just a brief statement on financial
management reform. Several years ago, in an effort to identify excess
spending in the Federal budget, I inquired as to overhead costs in
Federal programs. I was advised that the Federal accounting system
makes it impossible to identify overhead expenses for most Federal
operations. The Federal Government, it turned out, has over 200
separate primary accounting systems, making it impossible to compare
something as basic as overhead costs.
Worse, many of these systems are shamefully inadequate even on their
own terms. The Internal Revenue Service offers another disturbing
example of poor financial management and its consequences. The General
Accounting Office testified before the Governmental Affairs Committee
on June 6, 1996, that despite years of criticism, ``fundamental,
persistent problems remain uncorrected'' at the IRS. For example, the
IRS cannot substantiate the amounts reported for specific types of
taxes collected, such as Social Security taxes, income taxes, and
excise taxes. The IRS cannot even verify a significant portion of its
own nonpayroll operating expenses, which total $3 billion. One can
hardly resist observing that this is the agency that demands precision
from every taxpayer in America.

The IRS is just a small part of a Government so massive and complex
that it controls and directs cash resources of almost $2 trillion per
year, issuing 900 million checks and maintaining a payroll and benefits
system for over 5 million Government employees. Clearly it is
imperative that the Government use a uniform and widely accepted set of
accounting standards across the hundreds of agencies and departments
that make up this Government.
Enactment of this measure into law would be a great step toward
putting Federal financial management in order. It requires that all
Federal agencies implement and maintain uniform accounting standards.
The result will be more accurate and reliable information for program
managers and leaders in Congress, meaning better decisions will be
made: tax dollars will be put to better use, and a measure of
confidence in the Government will be restored. While this is not the
kind of legislation that makes headlines, it is of great significance.
Its passage would be a major accomplishment for the 104th Congress.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the amendments I have offered are as
follows: One is for Senator Stevens, to provide that the ACIR utilize
nonappropriated funds for continued operations; for Senator Inhofe, to
strike section 404 of the bill; for Senator McCain, regarding a study
of the administratively uncontrollable overtime; for Senator Hollings,
to provide certain death benefits to civilian Government employees; for
myself and Senator Kerrey, regarding explosive detection training for
canines; for myself, naming the new courthouse in Portland, OR; for
Senator Brown, regarding Federal financial management improvement.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendments on this
side, and we support all of them.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these
amendments be considered and agreed to, en bloc, and that any
accompanying statements be placed at the appropriate place in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (No. 5249 through 5255), en bloc, were agreed to.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendments were agreed to.
Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. SHELBY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the chairman withhold?
Mr. SHELBY. I am glad to withhold.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set
aside so that I may be allowed to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SHELBY. Reserving the right to object, I would like to check with
Senator Kassebaum on her amendment, and also Senator Wyden, who has
been conferring with her, before we do that.
Mr. WYDEN. Did the Senator from Alabama ask unanimous consent to lay
aside----
Mr. SHELBY. The Senator from Nevada asked unanimous consent. What

[[Page S10291]]

we would like to know is, where are the Senator and Senator Kassebaum
on the amendment?
Mr. WYDEN. Senator Kassebaum and I are continuing to discuss these
matters. I think it is fair to say, in fact, that Senator Kassebaum
indicated that she thought it was appropriate to go on with further
business, and we will continue to discuss the matters with respect to
the gag rule a bit more.
Mr. SHELBY. I have no objection to temporarily setting aside the
Kassebaum amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will shortly send the amendment to the
desk on my behalf and that of Senator Levin and that of Senator Biden.
Mr. President, we have heard a lot in this Chamber about the issue of
reimbursing the former employee of the White House Travel Office, Billy
Dale, for attorney fees. There have been hours of talk in this Chamber
about that issue. Unfortunately, Mr. President, much of what we have
heard has been based on emotion and not on facts. In fact, there is
very little, if any, factual support for this very costly expenditure
of a $0.5 million--$500,000--to reimburse attorneys on the Billy Dale
case.
The American people, in effect, are being asked to pay for the
attorney fees of a person who was lawfully indicted and legitimately
prosecuted. Let me repeat: The American people are being asked to pay
the attorney fees for a person who was indicted lawfully--no question
about that--and who was legitimately prosecuted.
Proponents of this taxpayer expenditure contend that Mr. Dale was
wrongfully prosecuted. Yet, neither Dale nor these high-powered lawyers
who represented him--and still represent him--ever raised any of this
in any proceeding or in any case that was before the courts. They
didn't move to dismiss his indictment on the ground of prosecutorial
misconduct.
In fact, when they filed a motion for acquittal, the court, having
heard the evidence, denied the motion for acquittal. Why? Because it
was the judge's reasonable assessment that sufficient evidence existed
for a reasonable person to find Billy Dale guilty of the charges.
Mr. Dale and his attorneys also failed to allege wrongdoing against
those who investigated him, and there is no evidence to support that
there was any wrongdoing by the people who did the investigation. The
watchdog of Congress, the General Accounting Office, reviewed the case
and determined that the FBI and the IRS action taken during the period
surrounding the removal of the Travel Office employees were reasonable
and consistent with the Agencies' normal procedures.
Mr. President, a review by the Office of Professional Responsibility
in the Justice Department concluded that there was no wrongdoing on the
part of any FBI employees regarding the Travel Office matter.
Mr. President, I want to say that I believe that the chairman of this
subcommittee and the ranking member, the junior Senators from Alabama
and Nebraska, have brought a good bill before this body. There are
scores of amendments that have been filed. I would bet that a number of
them are not germane. Certainly this one is, and I felt there is
language in this bill that relates to this issue where this bill would
pay, in effect, Mr. Dale's attorneys $500,000, and that this should be
something that should be discussed. This should be an issue that is
debated, and I do that under the recognition that I think the two
managers of this legislation have done a good job.
But let me repeat regarding these attorney fees that there is no
evidence to support that Mr. Dale--as Mr. Dale and his attorneys did
raise--there is nothing to support that there was any wrongdoing in
this investigation. I repeat: The General Accounting Office reviewed
this matter and determined that the FBI and the IRS did nothing wrong
regarding the procedures in the Travel Office. They were reasonable and
consistent with the Agencies' normal procedures and practices.
A review by the Office of Professional Responsibility in the Justice
Department concluded that there was no wrongdoing on part of any FBI
employee regarding the Travel Office matter, and it is clear that all
the people who investigated this case were there long before this
administration took office. Notwithstanding this, the American
taxpayers have been asked to pay almost $0.5 million to Dale's
attorneys. This is clearly a private relief bill.
If this had been in the form of an amendment, our rules would have
allowed us to raise a point of order, and this procedure could have
been knocked out. But in that the committee and the subcommittee had,
in effect, amended the House bill, we have nothing to raise a point of
order on. As a result of that, this is the only alternative we have.
We are being asked as a body to grant this relief absent any hearing
or committee report on this subject. The matter should be subject to
the ordinary procedures for private relief bills provided under Senate
rule XIV.
That is why I am offering this amendment, along with Senators Levin
and Biden, that comports with the procedures set out in rule XIV. The
amendment that will shortly be offered refers the reimbursement of Mr.
Dale's attorney fees to the Federal Court of Claims.
Mr. President, the Federal Court of Claims is a body in which the
judges are appointed for a period of 15 years. This is a body that has
been in existence for over 100 years. It has decided exactly the type
of issue presented in the Billy Dale matter on hundreds and hundreds of
cases. This court has special jurisdiction for cases involving claims
against the Federal Government.

As I have indicated, it is made up of approximately 15 judges. These
are referred to as article 1 judges because they serve for a time
certain, and these people are appointed by the President of the United
States for these 15-year terms. They handle primarily contractual
claims, fifth amendment claims, and certain Indian claims.
Over the past century, Congress has referred thousands of cases to
the court. The court reviews these cases under specific statutory
authority and procedures set out in claims cases under the United
States. Initially, the case is referred to a chief judge who designates
another judge. In fact, they usually have three people that hear these
cases, and these three judges become the reviewing body.
The bottom line is this panel has the most expertise that we have in
America to handle this kind of case.
I think this is something we would want to do to avoid the bitter
political acrimony that has taken place on this floor in the past
regarding this matter. It would seem that we should refer it to the
body separate and apart from the policy involved. If in fact this
amendment carries, it is up to the Court of Claims to determine the
extent to which Mr. Dale has a legal and equitable remedy in this
matter and whether or not the taxpayers should pay him money.
Now, I think justice and equity weighs against Mr. Dale, but let the
Court of Claims determine that. This amendment is the least we can do
for the American taxpayer. Half a million dollars may be pocket change
for some and maybe even Mr. Dale's attorneys, but it is not to the
American public. It is a lot of money to the American public.
Facts do not support such a controversial expenditure on behalf of
someone who has been indicted for embezzlement and offered to plead
guilty.
Here is what we are being asked to do. We are being asked to pay
$500,000 in attorney's fees for someone who admitted his guilt,
basically, according to his attorney. Here is what his attorneys wrote
to the U.S. attorney:

Mr. Dale will enter a plea of guilty to a single count of
18 U.S.C. section 654. He will acknowledge that he
intentionally placed Travel Office funds in his personal
checking account without authorization.

Here is what he, Mr. President, has agreed to plead guilty to.
This is the statute.

Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States
or of any department or agency thereof, embezzles or wrongly
converts to his own use the money or property of another
which comes into his possession or under his control in the
execution of such office or employment, or under color or
claim of authority as such officer or employee, shall be
fined under this title . . . the value of the money and
property thus embezzled . . . or imprisoned not more than 10
years, or both.

It seems somewhat unique to me that someone who, in writing, agreed
to

[[Page S10292]]

plead guilty, could be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison, fined the
amount of money he stole, is now coming before the Congress of the
United States and saying pay my attorney's fees. Why? Because he was
acquitted.
Mr. President, I am a trial lawyer. Before I came here, I tried a lot
of cases. I did criminal work. I believe in our system of justice. The
vast majority of times trial by jury works out right. The right
decision is not always reached, but most of the time it is. The vast
majority of the time the right decision is reached. A lot of times the
jury does not arrive at the right result, but they arrive at a result.
Sometimes they do not, as we know it appears to a lot of us in the O.J.
Simpson case or the Menendez brothers. The juries do not always do the
right thing, but most of the time they do. This is an instance clearly
when they did not do the right thing.
Now, the facts do not support such a controversial expenditure on
behalf of someone who is indicted for embezzlement and offered to plead
guilty to a felony.
This issue is not about the firing of the Travel Office employees in
1993. Most agree that these terminations were not handled
appropriately. But everyone also agrees that their dismissals were
legal, that the administration, the White House, had a right to do that
within the prerogatives of the law and the office held by the
President.

I repeat, the people who were relieved of duty there were relieved of
duty legally. Whether it was done in an appropriate manner without
hurting a lot of feelings and kind of roughshod, that is something we
can all talk about. We would all agree it could have been handled
better. But nothing was done illegally. This amendment that will be
offered is about putting an end to the partisan election year games
that are now occurring in Congress. Half a million dollars is too high
a price to ask of taxpayers, the people of the State of Nevada, Ohio,
Washington, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Utah, and the rest of the country.
This is about putting an end to partisan, election-year games now
occurring in Congress. I repeat, half a million dollars is too high a
price to ask the taxpayers to bear for such an obvious election-year
program.
Those who seek to embarrass this administration should not ask the
taxpayers to finance their fun and games. If we decide as a body to
reimburse Mr. Dale as called for in this legislation now before the
Senate, we will be setting a dangerous precedent. This will be the
first time in the history of this Congress that we will have paid the
attorney's fees of a lawfully indicted and prosecuted individual. There
is precedent to pay the legal fees for the Travel Office employees who
were not indicted, and we should do that. No problem with that. There
is nothing in precedent that would prevent the Government from
rectifying a wrong. Travel Office employees who had to pay legal fees
should be reimbursed. The independent law governs this area. That is
the best we have. We can talk about it.
Payment of attorney's fees is permitted if the following two
conditions are satisfied. No. 1, the subject in the investigation would
not have been investigated but for the independent counsel, and No. 2,
the person was not indicted. Not indicted. Clearly, Mr. Dale would
follow under that basis. He was indicted and he was lawfully indicted.
Under independent counsel, the way the statute reads, there could even
be prosecutorial misconduct when the indictment takes place and he
still would not be reimbursed for his attorney's fees. In this
situation, there is no question that he was indicted properly, legally.
Mr. Dale's attorneys never raised prosecutorial misconduct, never.
As we all know, Mr. Dale was indicted. The independent counsel law is
explicit about the requirement that attorney's fees can be recovered
only if the individual was not subject to indictment. There are no
exceptions to this rule. If we are going to establish new precedent,
there at least should be a foundation for doing so, and the indictment
of a person legally is certainly strange grounds to set a precedent for
this Congress to start reimbursing people after the jury returns an
acquittal verdict.
There have been no Congressional hearings. There is no foundation in
the instant case. There is no committee report laying out the reasons
for breaking long-established precedent.
Without a lot of politics involved, we have offered the appropriate
response to Mr. Dale's problem. If in fact he has been wronged, which I
do not think he has, but if he has, why is this not referred to the
appropriate tribunal, which would be the Court of Claims? We have done
it hundreds and thousands of times, as I have indicated earlier.
Legislation to pay attorney's fees for specific individuals is a form
of private relief. Senate rule 14.9 governs the Senate consideration of
private relief legislation.
What we have in this instance is that private relief legislation has
been folded over into this Treasury-Postal Service bill. If this
amendment were not raised, the American public would be paying half a
million dollars. They may pay half a million dollars anyway if this
bill passes and this amendment does not carry, but they will know that
a man who agreed to plead guilty to a felony, a man who was properly
indicted--there was never a question of prosecutorial misconduct ever
raised during the trial proceedings--is going to be paid $500,000 in
attorney's fees. I think that sets a very, very dangerous precedent. In
short, it requires, this amendment I will offer, the adoption of a
resolution referring such matter, as I have indicated, to the Court of
Claims. That is why we have the Court of Claims.

What would the American public think if anytime someone is indicted
and acquitted that we pay their attorney's fees? Or do we pick and
choose what attorney's fees we pay if there is an acquittal? We do that
legislatively? If there is a problem it should be referred to the Court
of Claims. There is statutory procedure in place for dealing with this.
Under 28 U.S.C. 2509, the Federal claims court determines whether the
private relief sought from U.S. taxpayers is appropriate.
We have heard the plaintive cries of how they were terminated
improperly. Remember, the President had the ability and the legal right
to fire the people for no reason. I have acknowledged that they could
have been terminated in a different manner. Procedurally, the claims
court assumes jurisdiction of these cases upon referral of either House
of Congress. Upon review, the court must determine whether there is a
legal or equitable claim to taxpayer money or whether such payment
would be simply a gratuity. Our amendment follows precedent and is in
compliance with the statute.
To many, Billy Dale is the epitome of the modern-day victim. The
media--remember where he worked. He worked in the White House Travel
Office. Millions of dollars went through his hands every year. And his
job was to make happy the people who travel from the White House, but
especially the press, especially the press. He had to make them happy.
That was his main function. He served them well. He made them happy,
and they have done a great job of portraying him as victim. In Nevada,
Seattle, Cleveland, or anyplace else, it would not be that way. It
would not be that way. In any city in Nevada, if this were explained to
them, he would not be a victim. He would be somebody who should be
prosecuted, as was determined by the Justice Department.
In addition to his high-priced attorney, Mr. Dale has received public
support from many notable heavyweights in the media. He took good care
of them. He runs in powerful circles and has no shortage of influential
supporters. Today he has become the poster boy for every--I should not
say for every--for many fundraisers. At many Republican fundraisers
around the country, Billy Dale is the poster boy. As it was reported in
August in the media, candidate Dole had offered him a job in his
Presidential campaign. He is still the subject of a plethora of
sympathetic pieces in the news by his old friends in the media.
This has all culminated in today's effort to attempt to embarrass the
President by appropriating $500,000 very quietly. It is in the bill.
There would be no vote on it. It was just slipped through here quietly
and the American taxpayers then would be confronted with people saying,
``Yeah, we told you so. The President has agreed to pay this money
because he was so wrong.'' He is not so wrong. The Congress of the

[[Page S10293]]

United States should not be involved in this. It should be referred to
the Court of Claims.
The real facts according to his indictment have yet to be aired, but
we are going to talk about those. If such an appropriation took place
in this bill, under the Federal election laws it should be deemed as an
in-kind contribution to campaigns around the country, Republican in
nature.
When it comes to Billy Dale, many speak of conspiracies. But it is
the conspiracy of silence that I would like to speak about a little bit
today. The silence over the activities that led to Mr. Dale's
indictment is deafening. All we seem to hear about is poor Billy Dale.
However there is reason why the man was indicted, and let us not forget
that Mr. Dale agreed--I repeat--to plead guilty to embezzlement. Mr.
Dale is, in my opinion, an admitted crook. He is today asking the
American taxpayer to pick up his legal bill.

He has every right to do this, but let us do it in the Court of
Claims. He has waived, in my opinion, every right of confidentiality,
with his campaign by his attorneys and him to be reimbursed for
attorney's fees, regarding the facts supporting his prosecution. If the
American public is going to pay $500,000 to a high-priced Washington
law firm, they should know the whole story. So let us talk a little bit
about the whole story. Let us talk about some of the things that he
testified to at his trial.
He testified to a number of things. He admitted putting 55 checks for
Travel Office funds totaling some $54,000 in his personal bank account.
Mr. President, if we want to get into more detailed facts, and we can
do that, we will find that he was very careful in the checks that he
put in his personal bank account. He basically put in checks that would
be very, very difficult to trace. What checks did he put in his
personal bank account? Checks that came from foreign news outlets, from
Mexico, from places in Europe, from Asia. He was very careful. He did
not put into his personal bank account checks from CBS, ABC, and other
American media outlets. He took into his personal checking account
checks that could not be traced.
He also had a number of explanations why he did this. It was more
convenient--that is a real laugher--more convenient. The bank that held
the checks legally for the Travel Office was about a block from the
White House where he worked. His personal bank was miles away, out in
Maryland someplace.
He admitted during the trial, admitted cashing refund checks to the
Travel Office received from telephone companies for trips where the
press had been overcharged.
He admitted that by not putting the refund checks in the Travel
Office bank account he was breaching an obligation he had to apply any
surplus in that account toward the very next trip. He even got into--he
was storing this money up so he could cover foreign trips during
October and November. It is a little difficult in an election year.
They just do not happen.
He admitted that there were times in 1992 that he cashed Travel
Office checks but did not write them down in his petty cash log, and
that anyone looking for them in the log would not know that he had
cashed the checks.
He admitted during the trial to putting checks that were supposed to
go into the Travel Office surplus fund account at the Riggs Bank into
his own personal account. This is what I have talked about. One was a
block away, the other was at his home.
He admitted during the trial that he did not even tell the individual
who worked with him in the Travel Office for 30 years, his chief
assistant, Gary Wright, of this practice of putting these checks into
his own account and not the office account. No one knew except him. It
was a secret. Why? Because he was stealing the money. He admitted to
cashing one check for $5,000, writing down only $2,000 for that check
in the petty cash log. When he was first contacted by the investigators
about that he was silent. They talked to him again: Silent. Suddenly,
after having run to his credit union and borrowing enough money to
cover this, he brought the money back and said, ``I had it in my desk
drawer.'' Of course he did not have it in his desk drawer.

Dale admitted that he overcharged for some of the flights and
undercharged for others, instead of just charging exactly what the trip
cost. Then he offered some incomprehensible explanation to the
investigators, why that was beneficial.
There are many other things that he admitted during the trial, but
the fact of the matter is we are being asked here to reimburse
attorney's fees of $500,000 for Billy Dale, his attorneys, so he can
carry on this campaign of harassment that he has been engaged in in the
past 6 months or year.
We can look at a prosecution memo. Before cases are brought in
Federal court--you have heard the expression, ``What are they trying to
do, make a Federal case out of it?'' That, Mr. President, comes with
very good reason, because in the federal system, and the Presiding
Officer knows, having been an Attorney General, as most people, that
Federal cases are developed under very detailed circumstances. Almost
every time a case is filed that results in indictment, a prosecution
memo is prepared. A prosecution memo was prepared in this case.
I will read just a little bit from the prosecution memo:

The FBI has investigated this matter and strongly supports
these charges.

That is in the first paragraph. I repeat:

The FBI has investigated this matter and strongly supports
these charges.

What are these charges?

We propose to charge Billy Ray Dale, the former director of
the White House Telegraph and Travel Office, with converting
to his own use approximately $54,000 in checks and $14,000 in
cash received by him in connection with his official duties.

The only reason the $14,000 figure isn't higher is because records
were destroyed. This is the petty cash fund for only 1 year. It
certainly would have been much higher if those records had been
available.
There are a number of other things in this prosecution memo that I
think call out for comment when Congress is being asked to respond to
half a million dollars:
No legitimate explanation for these deposits. It talks about the
missing cash in addition to the missing checks. There were numerous
checks cashed, unreconciled estimated bills and large fluctuations in
the bank balances. This is from the prosecution memo.

A decision was made to inform the Travel Office employees
that the examination was being conducted as part of the
National Performance Review. Records were in a shambles.

Thirteen checks made out to cash for which there was little or no
documentation established how the cash was spent. There was a
questionable transaction involving a $5,000 check to cash. Further, he
had no explanation of the discrepancy--this is the $5,000 check--but
that he later found the money in his desk. The report found a lack of
financial controls and accounting systems. We know that.
Most importantly, the report found discrepancies with the petty cash
fund, which he controlled.
Also, they indicate that this certainly was no kind of a witch hunt.
They also, Mr. President, came to the conclusion:

We found no evidence of illegal conduct by any other member
of the Travel Office. The media checks selected by Dale for
deposit into his account were not from mainstream press
organizations, but rather English, Japanese, German and
Hispanic media. Dale's selection of these checks is
significant. The refund checks invariably were generated by
the vendors on their own. They arrived unexpectedly, and
their absence would not be missed. Similarly, the checks from
these esoteric news services were less likely to be
scrutinized by these services when returned by their bank,
and those organizations would be less likely to understand
the meaning of Dale's name on the deposits and not the Travel
Office.

Because he wrote on them ``For deposit only to Billy R. Dale.''

We could find no legitimate reason for these checks to be
deposited in Dale's personal bank account. It certainly was
not easier--

Still quoting from this memo:

It certainly was not easier for Dale to have taken checks
to home, to Maryland, rather than walk across the street.
Indeed, on four occasions, Travel Office checks were
deposited by Dale in his account on the same day deposits
were made to the Travel Office account at Riggs.

There is certainly no evidence at all that Dale ever used any of
these moneys from his personal account to pay Travel Office expenses.
Then why

[[Page S10294]]

would he put it in there? He would put it in there so he could use the
money.
Then, of course, they do a minimal accounting to find out what would
happen if he spent this money and where he spent it. They did that and
arrived at the conclusion he had to take the money and use it on his
own: homes purchased, children getting money. These are not my words.
This is from the Justice Department:

The evidence indicates that Dale stole the missing $14,000
in cash. He cannot claim credibly that he used relatively
large amounts of unused checks to pay trip expenses during
the period. He offered no explanation for the misrecording.

Dale was asked three times about the $5,000 check, and he finally
said on the third occasion:

He now had an explanation for the missing money. Dale went
to his desk and produced an envelope containing $2,800 in
cash, enough to make up the difference, which he told the
investigator this corresponded to a portion of the missing
money. Dale told the investigator that he had set the $3,000
aside for an upcoming trip to Indonesia because he sometimes
had to pay kickbacks when he traveled to that part of the
world.

Dale's explanation, of course, is not credible. There is no reason
why this cash would not have been used for another trip. So his
explanation is without any foundation whatsoever.
His explanation about needing this money in Indonesia is inconsistent
with the travel records for that period. The $5,000 check was cashed in
October of 1992. He made no international trips from January 10, 1992,
until he left the office in May of 1993. The question is asked, why
wasn't he convicted? We all ask that question.
I am not going to impugn the ability of the prosecutors, but it must
have been a busy week. I don't think they were very well prepared for
this case. Acquittals come, as we all know. Sometimes they shouldn't
come. So, in finality, the prosecution memo says:

We propose to charge Dale with two counts of conversion
under United States Code 654.

So, Mr. President, there is more here to this than we have heard in
the past. For example, we have referred to his plea agreement. November
30, 1994, I am reading directly from his letter:

Mr. Dale will enter a plea of guilty to a single count of
18 U.S. Code 654. He will acknowledge he intentionally placed
Travel Office funds in his personal checking account without
authorization.
It goes on to explain what he would like in the way of a sentence.
I believe the facts simply do not support a half-million-dollar
payment to Dale's attorneys. It is clear that the Justice Department
had probable cause to indict and prosecute Billy Dale. It is important
to keep in mind who it was who made this determination--career service
attorneys at the Department of Justice. The White House had nothing to
do with this. Likely--not likely; no question about it--that people
doing this were holdovers from the Bush and Reagan administrations,
professional prosecutors.
This is a private relief claim at best and should be referred to the
Court of Claims. It has been turned into a political matter and should
be removed from the political arena. Claims court is the proper forum
for deciding whether Mr. Dale's attorneys are entitled to receive
taxpayer compensation; otherwise, we are breaking well-established
precedent for purely political purposes. In doing so, we would create a
tremendously dangerous precedent in this body.
We cannot make a mistake about it. This reimbursement is for
Presidential politics. Mr. Dale runs in high circles now and has become
the poster boy for every Republican--I should not say ``every''--for
many political fundraisers held by the Republicans. He was offered a
job by Presidential candidate Dole, as reported in the press. And there
are a few $1,000 fundraisers at which he appears.
Any appropriations should be considered an in-kind contribution to
the Republican Presidential campaign. The record we have laid out today
evidences the need to remove this matter from this body and to take it
to the Court of Claims where appropriate consideration can be given. At
a minimum, don't the taxpayers at least deserve this? What kind of a
precedent would we set by including, in an appropriations bill, a
payment for somebody's attorney's fees who was rightfully indicted and
was acquitted by a jury, which happens in our system?
Mr. Dale's attorneys down on K Street, or wherever they are, I do not
think will go hungry awaiting this decision. It is the right thing to
do. The amendment that is going to be offered says that he should be
reimbursed if the Court of Claims determines Dale has a legal or
equitable claim.

Amendment No. 5256

(Purpose: To refer the White House travel office matter to the Court of
Federal Claims)

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on my behalf
and that of Senator Levin and Senator Biden.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself, Mr. Levin
and Mr. Biden, proposes an amendment numbered 5256.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 91, line 3, strike ``The'' and insert ``Except as
provided in subsection (f), the''.
On page 92, between lines 21 and 22, add the following:
(f)(1) Any former employee of the White House Travel Office
whose employment in that office was terminated on May 19,
1993, and who was subject to criminal indictment for conduct
in connection with such employment, shall be reimbursed for
attorney fees and costs under this section but only if the
claim for such attorney fees and costs, which shall be
referred to the chief judge of the United States Court of
Federal Claims, is determined by the chief judge to be a
legal or equitable claim, as provided in paragraph (2).
(2) The chief judge shall--
(A) proceed according to the provisions of sections 1492
and 2509 of title 28, United States Code; and
(B) report back to the Senate, at the earliest practicable
date, providing--
(i) such findings of fact and conclusions that are
sufficient to inform the Congress of the nature, extent, and
character of the claim for compensation referred to in this
section as a legal or equitable claim against the United
States or a gratuity; and
(ii) the amount, if any, legally or equitably due from the
United States to any individual referred to in this section.

Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the amendment relate to the amendment of
the Senator from Nevada?
Mr. HATCH. It does.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, could I make a parliamentary inquiry?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. State your parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. REID. Is there a second-degree amendment pending to the amendment
offered by the Senators from Michigan and Nevada?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is attempting to make that
determination.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I was only curious. Something was sent to
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has in fact sent, not
one, but two amendments to the desk at the same time. It would take
unanimous consent to consider the two amendments as a single amendment.
Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 5256, as Modified

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
offered by the Senators from Nevada, Michigan and Delaware be modified
to strike lines 1 and 2 of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 5256), as modified, is as follows:

On page 92, between lines 21 and 22, add the following:
(f)(1) Any former employee of the White House Travel Office
whose employment in that office was terminated on May 19,
1993, and who was subject to criminal indictment for conduct
in connection with such employment, shall be reimbursed for
attorney fees and costs under this section but only if the

[[Page S10295]]

claim for such attorney fees and costs, which shall be
referred to the chief judge of the United States Court of
Federal Claims, is determined by the chief judge to be a
legal or equitable claim, as provided in paragraph (2).
(2) The chief judge shall--
(A) proceed according to the provisions of sections 1492
and 2509 of title 28, United States Code; and
(B) report back to the Senate, at the earliest practicable
date, providing--
(i) such findings of fact and conclusions that are
sufficient to inform the Congress of the nature, extent, and
character of the claim for compensation referred to in this
section as a legal or equitable claim against the United
States or a gratuity; and
(ii) the amount, if any, legally or equitably due from the
United States to any individual referred to in this section.

Amendment No. 5257 to Amendment No. 5256

(Purpose: To reimburse the victims of the Travel Office firing and
investigation)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the second-degree
amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] proposes an amendment
numbered 5257.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

Strike all after the first word and insert the following:
(2) Verification required.--The Secretary shall pay an
individual in full under paragraph (1) upon submission by the
individual of documentation verifying the attorney fees and
costs.
(3) No inference of liability.--Liability of the United
States shall not be inferred from enactment of or payment
under this subsection.
(b) Limitation on Filing of Claims.--The Secretary of the
Treasury shall not pay any claim filed under this section
that is filed later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(c) Limitation.--Payments under subsection (a) shall not
include attorney fees or costs incurred with respect to any
Congressional hearing or investigation into the termination
of employment of the former employees of the White House
Travel Office.
(d) Reduction.--The amount paid pursuant to this section to
an individual for attorney fees and costs described in
subsection (a) shall be reduced by any amount received before
the date of the enactment of this Act, without obligation for
repayment by the individual, for payment of such attorney
fees and costs (including any amount received from the funds
appropriated for the individual in the matter relating to the
``Office of the General Counsel'' under the heading ``Office
of the Secretary'' in title I of the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
1994).
(e) Payment in Full Settlement of Claims Against the United
States.--Payment under this section, when accepted by an
individual described in subsection (a), shall be in full
satisfaction of all claims of, or on behalf of, the
individual against the United States that arose out of the
termination of the White House Travel Office employment of
that individual on May 19, 1993.
Sec. 529. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Executive Office of the President to request
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation any official
background investigation report on any individual, except
when it is made known to the Federal official having
authority to obligate or expend such funds that--
(1) such individual has given his or her express written
consent for such request not more than 6 months prior to the
date of such request and during the same presidential
administration; or
(2) such request is required due to extraordinary
circumstances involving national security.
Sec. 528. (a) Reimbursement of Certain Attorney Fees and
Costs.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay
from amounts appropriated in title I of this Act under the
heading, ``Departmental Offices, Salaries and Expenses'', up
to $499,999 to reimburse former employees of the White House
Travel Office whose employment in that Office was terminated
on May 19, 1993, for any attorney fees and costs they
incurred with respect to that termination.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, it is moving on in the day and Senator
Kerrey and I have talked to a number of Members about any votes
requested tonight. We will try to stack them tomorrow. He has no
disagreement with that.
I yield to him for any comments.
Mr. KERREY. We have not had a discussion with the leadership about
this. We have lots of people who would like to bring amendments down.
Mr. SHELBY. Subject to the approval of both leaders?
Mr. KERREY. We will try to get in touch with the leadership and see
if we can work that out.
Mr. SHELBY. I yield the floor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer, in his capacity as the
Senator from Washington, suggests the absence of a quorum.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 5208, as Modified

Mr. SHELBY. I ask unanimous consent that amendment 5208, which was
previously agreed to, be modified with the changes I now send to the
desk, and, further, that the modifications be considered agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 5208), as modified, is as follows:
At the end of the committee amendment, insert the
following:
``No adjustment for:
``(1) members of Congress under section 601(a) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, and
``(2) members of the President's Cabinet (as defined in 5
U.S.C. section 5312) under section 5318 of Title 5, U.S.
Code,

shall be considered to have taken effect in fiscal year
1997.''.

Mr. SHELBY. I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 5256, As Modified

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the appropriations bill before the Senate
includes a provision to pay attorney's fees for the employees of the
White House Travel Office who were dismissed from their jobs in 1993.
This provision is similar to Senate bill 1561 sponsored by Senator
Hatch earlier this year and to House bill 2937.
The provision would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to pay up to
$500,000 of taxpayers' money to six former Travel Office employees;
$50,000 of that amount would go to five of the employees who were
already partially reimbursed by last year's appropriations bill. The
rest, or about $450,000, would go to reimburse former Travel Office
Director Billy Dale's attorney fees.
Unlike the other Travel Office employees, Billy Dale was subject to a
Federal indictment and prosecution for embezzlement and conversion. It
is that indictment and prosecution for embezzlement and conversion
which is the source of the attorney fees. I want to repeat that because
that is the critical issue that is before the Senate: It is the
attorney fees that related to the FBI indictment and prosecution for
embezzlement and conversion that is the source of the attorney fees
that is in this bill. The provision, though, in this bill, lumps
together both the unindicted and the indicted Travel Office employees.
That is the mistake which should be remedied.
We know that the White House staff acted inappropriately when they
summarily fired all the Travel Office employees in May 1993. The White
House acknowledged that in their July 1993 management review when it
said--this is the White House speaking--that the White House erred in
not treating the Travel Office employees with more sensitivity. We also
know that the White House staff erred in that conduct with respect to
the FBI. They took actions which they should not have, which had the
appearance of trying to influence the FBI. The White House acknowledged
that in their 1993 management review when that review said, ``The White
House erred in not being sufficiently vigilant in guarding against even
the appearance of pressure on the FBI.''
The White House, by its own acknowledgment, was wrong when it allowed
people with personal financial interest in the Travel Office to be
involved in the work of the office and in evaluating the office. The
White House management report acknowledged this, as well, when it said,
``The White House erred in permitting people with personal interests in
the outcome to be involved in evaluating the Travel Office.''
Now, it is because of those errors, those facts, on the part of the
White House relative to the firing of those employees that the Congress
agreed to pay the attorney fees of former Travel Office employees who
were fired, who should not have been fired, who were improperly filed.
We appropriated $150,000 in last year's appropriation for

[[Page S10296]]

the Department of Transportation, and we will complete that course of
action with the remaining $50,000 with this appropriations bill.
I do not have any argument with that. Quite the opposite. I think it
was the right thing to do. We ought to pay those attorney fees relative
to the firing of those employees.
However, $450,000 of the money in this bill would go for something
far different than paying attorney fees for employees who everybody has
already acknowledged should not have been fire--$450,000 of the
taxpayers' money in this bill will go to pay the attorney fees that
Billy Dale incurred in his defense against a criminal indictment. That
$450,000 was not incurred because Dale was wrongly fired. It was
incurred because a proper FBI investigation and a proper Department of
Justice review found substantial evidence of embezzlement and
conversion on the part of Billy Dale.

It was not the wrongful firing which relates to these $450,000 in
bills for attorneys. It is because Billy Dale was indicted. He was
indicted following a proper FBI investigation. He was indicted
following a proper Department of Justice review which found substantial
evidence of embezzlement and conversion on his part.
Now, as best as I can determine, if we pass this legislation as
currently drafted, it will be the first time in our history that we
have passed legislation to pay attorney fees incurred by someone who
has been, from all appearances, lawfully indicted.
Now, maybe there is another case; maybe there is another instance
where someone who was--I emphasize this--lawfully indicted following a
proper investigation by the FBI, and following a proper review by the
Department of Justice. Maybe there is another instance, but we can't
find it.
So what is in this bill is precedent-setting. There is not an
adequate foundation to set this precedent. The only law that allows for
the payment of attorney fees incurred because of a criminal
investigation is the independent counsel law. That law explicitly
prohibits individuals from recovering their attorney fees if they have
been indicted.
Now, while the attorney fees at issue here don't involve the
independent counsel law, it is the only standard that we have on the
books where the situation is comparable, so that it is reasonable that
it would serve as our guide. Ten years ago, when we reauthorized the
independent counsel law for the first time, we concluded that the
independent counsel statute may create inequitable situations, where
persons who would otherwise not be involved in a criminal investigation
could incur sizable attorney fees solely because of the independent
counsel law.
We decided, therefore, to allow for the reimbursement of attorney
fees for persons subject to investigation under the independent counsel
law if they met a two-part test. First, they had to show that they
would not have incurred the attorney fees but for the independent
counsel statute, and, second, they were not eligible if they were
indicted.
No one at the time, or since, has ever mentioned, much less
considered, the possibility of paying attorney fees for an indicted
individual. Now, when Congress took the first step last year of paying
the attorney fees of the fired White House Travel Office employees by
including $150,000 in the Department of Transportation appropriations
bill, that legislation explicitly limited payment of that money to
reimburse attorney fees only of White House Travel Office employees who
``were not the subject of the FBI investigation.'' That is why it was
passed so easily by a voice vote. It coincided with the independent
counsel standard. But the legislation before us would violate that
standard. If we are going to do that, we better have some criteria for
the precedent that we are setting.
The reason that we have made an indictment the threshold beyond which
there is to be no reimbursement for attorney fees is because an
indictment requires a determination that there be probable cause that
the person subject to the indictment committed a crime. The grand jury
is comprised of average citizens who make a determination as to whether
or not there is probable cause to go forward with an indictment and a
trial. It is a system that we use thousands of times a year, if not a
day, across this country. In order to be indicted, a prosecutor must
present evidence to a grand jury to show probable cause that a crime
was committed and that a specific person is the one who committed the
crime.
Whether or not the indicted person is eventually acquitted does not
take away from the fact that there was probable cause to believe that
the person had committed a crime. Acquittal doesn't mean that the
indictment never should have been brought. It means that the judge or
jury did not believe there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the
indicted individual was guilty. We have almost a thousand acquittals a
year in this country in the Federal system alone, and I suspect a
reasonable number of those involve relatively short jury
deliberations, like the Billy Dale case. There is nothing unusual or
suspect about such acquittals. That is the way the criminal process
works.

But what if an indictment had been improperly obtained? If that is
the case, that the indictment was tainted or obtained improperly, the
defendant can seek to have it thrown out before or during trial. Rule
12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for a defendant
to make a number of pretrial motions, ``including any defense or
objection to the prosecution, based on defects in the institution of
the prosecution''--there I am quoting rule 12--``or based on defects in
the indictment,'' and again I am quoting rule 12. Those motions are
made in hundreds--probably thousands--of cases.
Outside of rule 12, courts may also recognize challenges to a
prosecution or an indictment based on lack of due process. The court
may dismiss an indictment as an exercise of its inherent supervisory
authority to protect a defendant's due process.
These are long-recognized defenses to improper criminal prosecutions.
Those defenses, though, are supposed to be raised in the judicial
process and, in most cases, prior to trial. Rule 12 explicitly requires
that any claim of defect in the institution of the prosecution, or the
indictment, must be made prior to trial. Extensive case law supports
the requirement with the result that any claim not raised prior to
trial is deemed waived. So there is a clear and appropriate way for a
defendant in a criminal case to challenge the fairness or the propriety
of a prosecution.
As far as I can tell, Billy Dale did not raise any of these
challenges during the course of his prosecution. The court docket for
Billy Dale's case does not show any motion to dismiss because of
alleged defects in the indictment, or because of alleged Government
misconduct, or because of a claim of lack of due process; nor does the
docket show that Billy Dale made any of those claims during the course
of his trial. If he had these claims, he should have raised them at the
trial. Had he been convicted and appealed the conviction, he would have
been precluded from raising them on appeal, because if the claims
haven't been made before trial, then the defendant will be treated as
having waived those defenses.
Now, in support of this legislation, Senator Hatch has claimed that
Dale's indictment and prosecution were a ``grave miscarriage of
justice,'' and that Dale was ``wrongfully prosecuted.'' Well, if Billy
Dale had those claims at the time of his trial, he had the opportunity
and the legal obligation to raise them at trial. If he did not raise
those claims there, then unless there are compelling reasons, we should
be particularly careful in considering them here under this very rare
and unusual process of private relief legislation.
If the answer is that Billy Dale has one of these claims, but did not
raise it at the appropriate time, then we need an explanation as to why
he did not raise it in the appropriate form at the appropriate time.
There may be a legitimate reason, and we should hear that. But, so far,
there is nothing on the record to that effect.
Without a compelling reason to justify Dale's failure to make his
case about a wrongful prosecution while at trial, we would be
overthrowing longstanding and critically important precedent in
criminal procedure and in our handling of private relief bills were we
to act at this time. We would be saying to hundreds, perhaps thousands,

[[Page S10297]]

of defendants, that although they failed to make a timely motion
challenging the legitimacy of the private prosecution brought against
them, they can still come to Congress and we will consider paying their
legal fees, even though they would be forbidden from challenging the
legitimacy of the prosecution were the case on appeal from a
conviction.

But let's assume there was a legitimate reason for Dale to have
failed to raise this claim of wrongful prosecution at the trial. If
that were true, then we could be in a position to consider the
substance of the claim. But, surely, before we pay his attorney fees
out of taxpayer money, we ought to determine that the prosecution was
improper.
As the record now stands, I don't see evidence to support such a
claim. We don't have a Senate hearing record, or even a Senate
committee report on this legislation, because there aren't any. The
only record we have upon which we are supposed to judge this matter is
the House committee report that accompanies the bill.
Mr. President, I have read the House committee report. I do not find
anything in that report to justify a finding that either the FBI
investigation or Department of Justice prosecution of Billy Dale was
improper. What I have found is this: White House staff did a poor job
in responding to evidence of financial mismanagement in the White House
Travel Office, did a poor job of handling long-time White House Travel
Office employees, and the White House summarily fired all the Travel
Office employees before all the facts were known. The White House
itself acknowledged these errors back in 1993. There is nothing new
about those findings. In July 1993, the error was acknowledged by the
White House in the firing of Travel Office employees.
What else have we found? It was found before, but the White House
conveyed a heightened sense of urgency about the allegations involving
the Travel Office to the FBI and coordinated a press release with the
FBI which created the appearance of pressuring the FBI. The White House
acknowledged that error back in July 1993.
Those White House errors do not mean that the investigation by the
FBI or the prosecution by the Department of Justice were improper. That
is the heart of the matter. Errors in the firing, yes. They have been
acknowledged for years. But the prosecution of Billy Dale, the
investigation by the FBI, the prosecution by the Department of
Justice--were they defective? There is not even an allegation of that.
That is what these legal fees relate to. They do not relate to the
firing. We are paying those legal fees. They relate to the defense of a
criminal indictment which was properly brought following a proper FBI
investigation, following a proper Department of Justice prosecution
that no one has said was improper. There is nothing in the House
report, which is the only report we have, that says that the FBI
investigation was tainted, or wrong, or defective, or improper. There
is nothing in that House report which says that the Department of
Justice prosecution was tainted, or defective, or improper.
That is what these legal fees relate to. We are paying the legal fees
for the firing. And we ought to. They were done inappropriately. That
has been acknowledged for years. We paid $150,000 last year in the
appropriations bill. And this appropriations bill appropriates an
additional $50,000, and we ought to pay it. It is the $450,000 for the
defense against an indictment which was properly brought which is the
issue here and which would set a precedent. We have never paid the
legal fees of someone who was properly and legally indicted. If we open
up that door, we would have thousands of folks out there who are
acquitted, and many of whom are acquitted in just as short a time, who
will have an equal claim.
That is the issue. Whether or not we ought to have the Court of
Claims say that there was something inappropriate here before this
money is paid, that is what this amendment does. It does not say strike
the money. It says refer this to the Court of Claims to see if there is
an equitable claim. And if there is, pay it.
Mr. President, it was not the White House which carried out the
criminal investigation which led to the indictment of Billy Dale. It
was the FBI. Has anyone said that investigation by the FBI was
inappropriate, or tainted? Not that I have heard; not in the House
committee report, which is the only report we have on it. The White
House did not review the evidence obtained by the FBI and determine
that it should be presented to a grand jury for possible indictment.
That was the Department of Justice. It was not the White House that
reviewed the FBI investigation and said, ``Hey, we are going to indict
this person.'' The Department of Justice made that decision. I have not
heard anyone say that the Department of Justice concluded that it
should seek an indictment of Billy Dale which was tainted, or
defective, or inappropriate, or improper. That is not in the House
report, the only report we have.

The White House did not hear the evidence and determine that there
was probable cause to believe that Billy Dale had embezzled $54,000
from the White House Travel Office. That was the grand jury, and the
White House did not try this case and determine that there was
sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. That was the judge. The
judge did that. The judge heard this evidence and decided that there
was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of Billy Dale and let
this case go to the jury and denied a motion for directed verdict.
There is no evidence, there is no allegation, that the Federal Bureau
of Investigation pursued its investigation in an improper manner. There
is no evidence that the decision to prosecute a decision made by career
attorneys at the Justice Department was improper. That allegation has
not been made. It is not in the House report. I do not think it would
be sustainable if someone made it. There is no evidence that the
indictment by the grand jury was improper. There is no evidence that
the criminal trial conducted by a well-respected judge, whom Dale
himself lauded as being fair, was in any way improper. In fact, Dale
was asked at a hearing on the House side before the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight in January of this year by Congressman
Kanjorski whether Dale was ``suggesting in any way that either those
attorneys in the Justice Department, the people in the grand jury, the
judge that tried the case, or the people that made up the jury were in
some way compromised?'' That was the exact question. Billy Dale
responded, ``Absolutely not.''
On May 28, 1993, the FBI released a report of its internal review of
its contacts with the White House on the Travel Office. The FBI
Director concluded that ``The FBI acted correctly''. He said that ``FBI
personnel declined to offer guidance, restricted their interest to the
parameters of a possible criminal investigation and did not commit to
conducting a criminal investigation until after consultation with
appropriate personnel within the FBI and Department of Justice.''
The GAO looked into the handling of the White House Travel Office. In
its report in May of 1994 it stated, ``FBI interactions with Associate
Counsel Kennedy and White House press officials occurred in a mode of
urgency but GAO found no evidence that the FBI took inappropriate
action as a result of those conditions.''
The GAO went on to say that it found that the FBI actions ``during
the period surrounding the removal of the Travel Office employees were
reasonable and consistent with the agency's normal procedures.''
The Office of Professional Responsibility in the Department of
Justice also reviewed the conduct of the FBI in this matter, and in its
report, dated March 18, 1994, said the following: ``Based on our
inquiry, we have concluded that the FBI acted properly throughout its
dealings with the White House regarding the Travel Office matter.''
Providing more detail, the report went on to say, ``As noted, we
found no wrongdoing on the part of any FBI employees regarding the
Travel Office matter, but the various FBI agents who had direct contact
with White House Associate William Kennedy have different recollections
of their conversations with him. All agreed that they did not interpret
Kennedy's statements as threats or attempts by him to pressure them to
respond to the factual situation in an inappropriate manner, or in any
way inconsistent with normal procedures.''

[[Page S10298]]

I am continuing to quote. ``And the record makes clear that the
agents who had direct contact at the White House, as well as their
superiors at FBI headquarters, followed normal procedures in responding
to the Travel Office matter.''
The Office of Professional Responsibility goes on to say that ``ill-
advised and erroneous'' action by White House staff during this time--
``ill-advised and erroneous'' action by White House staff during this
time; everyone concedes that. But the Office of Professional
Responsibility said, ``--created the appearance that the FBI was being
used by the White House for political purposes'' but concluded that the
problem was one of appearance and not substance with regard to the FBI.
The House committee report lays out a summary of the facts in this
case, a summary with which I do not have much dispute, but in reaching
its conclusion it, like the legislation, makes no distinction between
former Travel Office employees who were not indicted and Billy Dale who
was indicted. That is the distinction which this appropriations bill
does not make either. It is the critical distinction because there has
been concession, there has been acknowledgement, there has been
awareness for years that errors were made by the White House in the
firing of those people and the attorney's fees have been paid, and they
have been paid except for $50,000, in this bill, properly.
But there is another case, there is another situation in here. That
is the proper legal indictment of Billy Dale following a proper
investigation by the FBI, following a proper review of that
investigation by the Department of Justice, following a proper
indictment by the Department of Justice from the grand jury, following
a proper jury trial.
The issue with respect to this legislation then is not the payment--
and I am going to repeat this because we are going to hear a lot about
the improper firing, which is conceded, has been acknowledged for
years, and I have no doubt that we will hear later tonight, perhaps
tomorrow, in great detail about the improper firing of these employees
of the Travel Office, and that is not the issue. That has been
acknowledged at least for 2 years. Those attorney fees, again, should
be and have been paid for the most part and will be paid, the balance,
in this legislation. I think it is supported universally that they were
inappropriate firings and that the legal fees should be paid. I do not
know anyone who disagrees with that one.
The issue here is the payment of attorney fees to somebody who was
properly and legally indicted for the first time that I can find in our
history. No standards in the committee report, no committee report from
the Senate, just a private bill to pay attorney fees of people legally
indicted, following a proper investigation by the FBI, not tainted, not
alleged to be tainted, following proper prosecution, not tainted, not
alleged to be tainted, either at trial or in the House report or as far
as I know here. What was improper was the firing. But the indictment
was proper, too, and I am going to spend a few minutes as to what that
evidence was that led the FBI and the Department of Justice to seek an
indictment and to prosecute Billy Dale.
This indictment was based on a finding of probable cause that a named
individual committed a crime. Billy Dale was in charge of the White
House Travel Office. He served as its head for 11 years, had been in
the office for 32 years. There were six other employees in the Travel
Office who worked under Billy Dale. None of these employees, including
Billy Dale, was a member of the civil service. All the employees,
including Billy Dale, served at the pleasure of the President and could
be fired at will.
The job of the White House Travel Office is to accommodate the White
House press corps by arranging for their transportation and housing
while on travel to cover the President. Although the Federal employees
in the Travel Office are paid for at taxpayer expense, the payment for
the travel, the airplane, taxi, train, hotel costs are paid for by the
respective news organizations. The moneys for travel are funneled
through the White House Travel Office, so while the White House Travel
Office employees will make the arrangements for the airplane charter
and handle the reservations for hotel accommodations and meals, the
money to pay for those items will be collected by the Federal employees
at the Travel Office from the news organizations and then paid to the
respective companies that have incurred the costs.

To cover the costs in advance and keep the operation running, the
Federal employees at the Travel Office oversee and maintain an account
at the Riggs Bank through which payments and reimbursements are made.
So let's say that the White House press corps needs 20 rooms at a
hotel in Paris. The White House Travel Office books the 20 rooms, pays
for them when required either upfront or after the trip, and then it
bills each respective news organization for its share of the expenses.
That is how it is done. Why Federal employees should be the ones
responsible for getting the press corps around the world and
accommodated may not be 100 percent clear, but that is the way it
works. There is no problem with that. That is the way it works.
White House Travel Office employees would often go on these trips to
manage the travel and to cover incidental costs such as baggage
handlers and local transportation. The employees who would go on a trip
would take a fair amount of cash with them to pay for the necessary
expenses. They get this money, this cash they took along with them from
a petty cash account that they maintained at the Travel Office. They
were supposed to work as follows: The petty cash account would be
replenished by cashing checks at the Riggs Bank where the main account
for the office was maintained, recording the number of the check and
the amount cashed in a petty cash log. The Travel Office employees were
supposed to use either the Riggs Bank account, which was several blocks
away, that is all, from the White House, or the petty cash account,
which was in the Travel Office, to cover the expenses while traveling
with the White House press corps.
In May 1993, the White House counsel's office requested Peat Marwick,
a private accounting firm, to conduct a review of the financial records
of the Travel Office. That review found, according to the summary,
``significant accounting system weaknesses, including missing or
inadequate documentation for disbursements, a lack of financial control
consciousness, no formal financial reporting process, no
reconciliations of financial information, no documented system of
checks and balances on transactions and accounting decisions within the
office, no general ledger of cash receipts, disbursement journals, no
copies of bills on file.''
Now, in particular, Peat Marwick noted about ``eight discrepancies
between the amounts written to cash on the Riggs National Bank account
and the recording of these amounts into the petty cash fund.''
``Each of the eight checks was made out to cash and signed by the
director of the press travel office and endorsed by the same
individual. Those discrepancies totaled,'' according to Peat Marwick,
``$23,000.''
As a result of that audit, the FBI began an investigation, and during
the investigation the FBI learned the following. Sometime around 1988,
Billy Dale started depositing checks that belonged to the Travel Office
into his own personal account in Maryland that he had with his wife.
Dale deposited, the FBI found, 55 checks over 3 years totaling $54,000.
He did not reveal that he was depositing those checks into his account
in Maryland instead of in the office account across the street to
anybody. He did not acknowledge or notify Peat Marwick he was doing it.
He did not tell the FBI he was doing it. He did not tell his coworkers
at the White House he was doing it--nobody. The FBI uncovered the
deposits in his account because it had subpoenaed the records from that
account.

The FBI also learned that on numerous occasions Dale cashed Travel
Office checks for petty cash at the Riggs Bank but failed to record
that fact on the petty cash ledger, which he was supposed to do. There
was an unaccounted-for discrepancy of $13,000. During the Peat Marwick
audit, Dale never mentioned these facts and irregularities to auditors.
He never told anyone else about that money. We are here talking about
petty cash. He did not

[[Page S10299]]

tell his fellow employees in the White House Travel Office, anybody at
the FBI once the FBI investigation started. And this is from the trial
transcript now of Billy Dale.

Question: And you never told your deputy that you had taken
checks out of the Travel Office and put them into your
personal account, did you?
Answer: That is correct.
Question: And you never told any of the people in the
Travel Office that you had taken checks out and put them in
your personal account?
Answer: That is true.

Over the course of 3 years, 1988 to 1991, Billy Dale took checks
intended for the White House Travel Office, which were checks mostly
from telephone companies to reimburse the Travel Office for prior
payments in excess of needs. He took those checks, which were supposed
to go to the Travel Office, deposited them in his personal bank account
in Clinton, MD. He never told anyone, again, people he had worked with
for decades, about taking those checks.
When he was asked about which checks he took, this is what he
admitted at trial. How did he select the checks which he was not going
to deposit in the Riggs account across the street? It was the office
account. The ones he took to Clinton, MD, and deposited and merged with
his own private funds with his wife in his own personal bank accounts,
how did he pick them? Which ones? There were thousands of checks which
come in:

Question: And you took a little more care in selecting
these checks, didn't you?
Answer: I don't know what you mean.
Question: Well, you took the telephone refund checks,
because there was no record in the office that these
telephone refund checks were issued and coming back to the
office; right?
Answer: That is right.
Question: And so no one would know that the money was
missing, right?
Answer: That is right.
Question: And, so that no one would learn of what were you
doing, right?
Answer: That is right.

Now, again, the FBI was not told by Billy Dale that he deposited
$54,000 in checks in his personal account. He did not tell Peat Marwick
during their review. Despite the negative report by Peat Marwick about
financial mismanagement, he did not disclose it then. He never told
anyone about that--3 years, deposits checks in his personal account. It
was only after they were subpoenaed by the FBI that they discovered the
deposits of these Travel Office checks by Mr. Dale.
So, now the FBI learns, because of its subpoenaed bank records, of
these deposits of $54,000 in Travel Office money in his personal
account. That is not a small amount of money and it is not a minor act
by a Federal employee. It is a willful, intentional deposit of Travel
Office funds in an employee's private bank account. He did not keep the
funds separate. He merged them in his own private account, all mixed
together.
There is not one of us in this Chamber who would tolerate that
conduct by any of our employees. No one in private industry would allow
that. He did it surreptitiously, he did it secretly, and even when he
knew that the FBI was investigating the financial management of the
Travel Office, he kept it a secret.
That is about as good probable cause as a lot of prosecutors are
going to get in a lot of cases. At trial, Billy Dale testified and
presented an explanation for his conduct. He said that he was under
pressure by news organizations to keep the size of the office account
at Riggs, the so-called surplus in that account, at a reasonable
amount. But he said he needed more money than that in order to pay the
bills, and he testified he needed ``convenience and flexibility'' in
getting cash for trips.

Apparently walking two blocks to the Riggs Bank and cashing a
telephone refund check to take on a trip was not sufficient
convenience. So here is what he testified he did. He testified he kept
a personal hoard of cash at his home, not his home bank in Clinton, but
his house. He kept $20,000, he said, at his house. This came, he said,
from the proceeds of a small business that he sold, from rent that he
received from his children, and from the proceeds of his brother's
estate. He testified that he would take a telephone refund check for
the Travel Office, which might be in an amount of, say, $800 or $1,000,
he would go home, take that amount from his cash reserve. He would then
bring that amount from his cash reserve into the Travel Office. He
would then take the refund check which was intended for the Travel
Office and deposit it in his personal account at the Clinton, MD, bank.
That is his explanation as to how he deposited $54,000 of Travel Office
money in his personal checking account, for flexibility and
convenience.
He could have cashed these checks two blocks away at the Riggs Bank,
a bank that Travel Office employees used all the time, but he did not
do that. He deposited them in his personal bank account, merged with
his personal money for ``flexibility and convenience.'' He never made a
copy of the checks, never told anyone in the Travel Office about them.
No other Travel Office employee who had the same financial needs and
responsibilities on these trips--no other Travel Office employee
deposited Travel Office checks in their personal checking accounts. All
the other Travel Office employees used either cash from the Riggs
account or cash from the petty cash account in the office. All the
others--not Billy Dale.
Now, those facts surely were reasonable grounds upon which to
proceed. No one has argued--again, I emphasize, no one has argued that
the decision to prosecute was not reasonable here or that the FBI
investigation was not reasonable here. The judge found that that was
adequate to sustain a conviction.
Supporters of Billy Dale say because he was acquitted in just a few
hours, somehow or other that taints the prosecution. Are we going to
get into the business of awarding attorney's fees to an indicted,
properly indicted but acquitted, individual based on the amount of time
that it took to acquit? O.J. Simpson's trial lasted over a year and the
jury deliberated less than a day. Should the State of California pay
O.J. Simpson's attorney's fees because of the brevity of the
deliberation? I do not think we want to walk down that road. I do not
think we want to base our judgment on the validity of a criminal
prosecution on the length of a jury's deliberation.
Moreover, Billy Dale offered to plead guilty to a felony. This is a
situation where we are asked to decide whether a person who offered to
plead guilty to a felony should receive $450,000 in taxpayers' money to
pay for his defense when his offer to plead guilty was rejected by the
Government as not being adequate and he went to trial. The offer is to
a felony called ``wrongful conversion'' to one's own use and property
under his control. He offered to plead guilty to a felony
called ``wrongful conversion.'' He did it on November 30, 1994. This
information has been made public in many newspapers. Several points in
this written plea offer are important to note.

First, it is clearly and unequivocally an offer to plead guilty to
one count. It is one count of violation of the U.S. Code, section 654,
which states as follows:

Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States,
or of any department or agency thereof, embezzles or
wrongfully converts to his own use the money or property of
another which comes into his possession or under his control
in the execution of such office or employment, or under color
or claim of authority as such officer or employee, shall be
fined under this title not more than the value of the money
or property thus embezzled or converted . . . .

And so forth.
Billy Dale says he did not agree to plead guilty to embezzlement, and
that is correct. He did agree to plead guilty to wrongful conversion,
which is part of the same statute as the embezzlement language, the
same section, section 655 of 18 U.S. Code, which makes it a felony to
either embezzle or wrongfully convert. Both crimes carry the same
maximum penalties of up to 10 years in prison.
Billy Dale not only offered to pay a fine of not to exceed $69,000,
he also offered to accept up to 4 months imprisonment, one-half of
which was to be served in jail.
Why was Billy Dale offering to plead guilty? As he has said in
various testimonies since he offered to plead guilty: Because he wanted
to spare his family the grief and expense of a trial. But he also
offered to plead guilty because he did not want to face the risk, a
risk that he must have thought he had a reasonable likelihood of
incurring, the risk of a longer jail term. His attorney wrote in the
plea offer and the consequences of the acceptance of the

[[Page S10300]]

plea--this is the attorney for Billy Dale that said in the plea offer:

The Government will be able to publicize the conviction in
a case that has received considerable notoriety. The
defendant will in all likelihood receive some jail time and
will suffer a substantial financial detriment, all of which
is important to the Government. Moreover, Mr. Dale will be
forced to live with the stigma of having acted criminally in
his handling of the Travel Office money.
On the other hand--

His attorney writes in the plea offer:

Mr. Dale will avoid the expensive trial and the risk of a
substantially longer jail term.

So he offered to plead guilty, pay both a sizable fine and actually
serve some time in jail.
One other fact relative to the trial. At the end of the Government's
case, Billy Dale made a motion for acquittal, and that was denied. This
motion allows the judge to assess the presentation of the Government's
evidence and decide if, on its face, it is insufficient to present to a
jury.
Rule XXIX of the Federal rules of criminal procedure provide that:

The court, on motion of a defendant or on its own motion,
shall order the entry of judgment of acquittal of one or more
offenses charged in the indictment after the evidence on
either side is closed if the evidence is insufficient to
sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses.

So here was another check on the legitimacy of the prosecution. Even
though the grand jury was appropriately convened and the indictment was
without defect and the prosecution did not violate due process and was
not inappropriately selective, the defendant can ask the judge to
consider whether the evidence of guilt, as presented by the Government,
is sufficient to sustain a conviction by the jury. If the Government
did not present sufficient evidence to convict, then the case does not
go to the jury. The judge must acquit based on the motion of the
defendant over its own motion.
Billy Dale made this motion, and it was denied by the judge. So, in
the opinion of the judge, after the Government had presented all of its
evidence, there was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction.
I think a reasonable person looking at this record would find it
reasonable to conclude that the criminal prosecution of Billy Dale was
legitimate. Three separate reports on the firing of the White House
Travel Office employees concluded there was no wrongdoing by the FBI,
which was the lead investigative agency into alleged criminal conduct
in the Travel Office. The GAO concluded in May 1994 that ``the FBI and
the IRS actions during the period surrounding the removal of the Travel
Office employees were reasonable and consistent with the agency's
normal procedures.''
The FBI's internal review in May 1993 determined ``the FBI acted
correctly:''

FBI personnel declined to offer guidance, restricted their
interest to the parameters of a possible criminal
investigation and did not commit to conducting a criminal
investigation until after consultation with appropriate
personnel within the FBI and the Department of Justice.

Third, the review by the Office of Professional Responsibility and
the Department of Justice concluded:

We found no wrongdoing on the part of any FBI employees
regarding the Travel Office matter.

The Senate has not had 1 hour of hearings on this bill. We don't have
a committee report upon which we can assess the facts, not only of the
criminal prosecution but of the estimate for the attorney's fees.
The House committee report upon which we are supposed to rely does
not even mention, does not discuss the nature of the indictment or the
facts surrounding the indictment or the basis for it. Those facts are
ignored. What it focuses on and what I am sure will be focused on here
tonight is the inappropriateness of the firings, which the White House
and others concede.

The attorney's fees relating to the firing are, concededly,
appropriately paid. We should pay them. We paid three-quarters of them.
We should pay the balance in this bill. Those are not at issue. It is
not the firings that is at issue here. It is whether or not the
criminal indictment and the prosecution was defective and
inappropriate. That is the issue, because that is what these $450,000
of attorney's fees relate to.
The basis upon which we should consider paying Mr. Dale's attorney's
fees would be if there had been information uncovered that the Federal
Government acted unfairly in indicting Mr. Dale. If there was
sufficient evidence of that, then we should be given that information.
That is the only basis upon which we ought to be considering spending
almost a half million dollars of the taxpayers' money to reimburse
Billy Dale and setting a precedent, which, as far as we can determine,
is, indeed, a precedent, paying the attorney's fees of someone who is
properly and legally indicted.
We do not have a record of the facts upon which we can make such a
judgment.
Finally, Mr. President, there is a process in law to get that record.
This legislation is effectively a private relief bill. In fact, the
Parliamentarian has already ruled that the freestanding bill is a
private relief bill for Billy Dale.
There is a statutory procedure, 28 U.S. Code, section 2509. That
procedure provides that the Court of Claims can determine whether or
not private relief sought from Congress and the taxpayers by an
individual or group of individuals is appropriate.
Under that statute, the Court of Federal Claims, on referral from
either the Senate or the House, is required to determine if there is a
legal or equitable claim to taxpayers' money or whether such payment
would be simply a gratuity. The statute provides the following in part,
and here I am reading section 2509 of 28 U.S. Code:

Whenever a bill is referred by either House of Congress to
the chief judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims,
the chief judge shall designate a judge as hearing officer
for the case and a panel of three judges of the court to
serve as a reviewing body.
Each hearing officer and each review panel shall have
authority to do and perform any acts which may be necessary
or proper for the official performance of their duties,
including the power of subpoena and the power to administer
oaths and affirmation.
The hearing officer shall determine the facts and shall
append to his findings of fact conclusions sufficient to
inform Congress whether the demand is a legal or equitable
claim or gratuity and the amount legally or equitably due
from the United States to the claimant.

Referral under this statute to the Court of Claims would require the
court to develop a factual record outside the rhetoric of politics upon
which we could either then base a judgment or, in the case of the
amendment that has actually been filed, all that would be necessary is
for the Court of Claims to determine that, in fact, it is an equitable
claim. And then the legal fees would be automatically paid. We would be
given a report under the amendment which the Senator from Nevada
filed, but it would not have to come back here for further action. We
would authorize these attorney's fees subject to a determination and
finding by the Court of Claims pursuant to a law which is on the books
that that is an equitable claim against the United States.

Surely, we owe that much to the American taxpayers who would be
paying this bill, and we owe that much to ourselves before making a
decision on overturning decades of precedent. That is what the
amendment would do.
Again, it allows for the five Travel Office employees who were not
indicted to receive the final reimbursement of $50,000 for their legal
fees, which I think we all support. But it would refer the matter
relative to Billy Dale's attorney's fees to the Court of Federal Claims
for determination on the merits, and if the court determines that Billy
Dale has either a legal or equitable claim, then this amendment would
provide Billy Dale would be paid directly at that time when the
findings of the Court of Claims become final.
No additional action would be required other than a report to us of
what that final decision is. If, however, the court were to conclude
that the payments to Billy Dale were not based on a legal or equitable
claim but would be a gratuity, then the fees would not be paid.
This is a routine procedure. We use this procedure dozens of times.
We refer cases to the Court of Claims all the time. We do it with
private relief bills all the time. Sometimes the court finds that there
is a legal or equitable claim; sometimes it finds that it is a mere
gratuity. But before we set a precedent that we may come to regret,
there should be, from some objective source, a determination that this
claim is a legal or equitable basis.

[[Page S10301]]

Adoption of the Reid amendment, which has been cosponsored by myself
and Senator Biden, is the surest way to remove this issue from
politics, which is regrettably infused. Mr. President, I yield the
floor.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr HATCH. I yield to the distinguished majority leader. I would like
to retain my right to the floor.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Utah
for yielding, but I do think we need to notify our Members of where we
are. It will not take me but just a moment.
For the information of all Senators, earlier this evening the Senate
reached an agreement which limits the amendments in order to the
Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bill. The managers have been
working, along with the leadership representatives, with a number of
Senators, to reduce that list, instead of just a large list of
amendments here.
However, the grand total of amendments on the list is somewhere
between 95 and 97, I guess, amendments, which certainly is
unsatisfactory at this point. It makes it very difficult for us to be
able to complete the bill. But in order for the managers to continue to
work and try to reduce these amendments or to clear some of the
amendments, I would like to announce now, there will be no further
votes this evening, and any votes ordered tonight on this or other
amendments will be stacked at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday.
Senators should be aware that the managers are here and are willing
to debate, perhaps accept amendments or to conclude some of the
amendments that are now being debated. Members should expect rollcall
votes, of course, throughout the day on Thursday. It would be my
intent, in the morning, after consultation with the managers and the
minority leader, that we would continue on amendments in the morning.
After the stacked votes, if any, at 9:30--we had hoped to go to the
Chemical Weapons Convention at 10 o'clock in the morning. It looks like
we will have to just delay that and see where we are, which means that
we could have to go very, very late into the night on Thursday night,
could actually have to go over until Friday to have a vote on Friday
morning.
In any event, there will not be any votes after 12 noon on Friday,
since it is a Jewish holiday. I had hoped we could come to some
reasonable conclusion on this bill, get it completed, and then spend
the necessary time tomorrow on the Chemical Weapons Convention.
It is my intent to go to the Chemical Weapons Convention tomorrow. I
just do not know when it might be now in an effort to try to get some
conclusion on these amendments and complete this bill. But there will
be no further rollcall votes tonight. The next vote will be at 9:30 in
the morning, if any are ordered.
Does the minority leader have any comment?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just say, I want to thank the
Members of our leadership for working with Members on our side. As I
understand it, the list is quite extensive on both sides. There are 51
Republican amendments and almost that many, not quite that many,
Democratic amendments. But we are going to do our best to work with the
majority leader to see if we can bring that list down substantially by
tomorrow.
Obviously, Senators would be very helpful to both of us if we could
limit the amount of time on many of those amendments and offer
additional amendments tonight. There is no reason even if there are no
more votes why we cannot have a number of amendments yet tonight. So,
hopefully we can do that and be in a much better position to come to
some final assessment as to what the list looks like by midmorning
tomorrow.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, just in conclusion, certainly we will be
working with the Senator from South Dakota. We will get this list pared
down to what I guess is a real list, probably two or three or four or
five max. I do not know why we have to go through these exercises, but
we do, and we will do the best we can.
Again, under the rules we have, every Senator has his right or her
right to make their case, and we will work with them on that. But I do
want to remind Senators, a lot of times they think, ``Well, this will
kind of just go away, and I won't have to stay late tomorrow night, and
I can fly home tomorrow night or I'll be able to leave Friday
morning.''

There are some things around here that have to occur. And we have a
unanimous-consent agreement on the Chemical Weapons Convention. I have
an obligation to call that up. And I am going to. It requires 10 hours
under the rule. We can either cut that time down or we can take the
whole 10 hours. We can go late tomorrow night. But if we do not begin
until 1 or 2 or whatever time, it would be very late tomorrow night,
and we could not do anything about it basically. That one would go
until we got to the end.
So when Senators come, pleading, saying, ``I want to go home,'' there
would not be anything we could do if we wanted to. Or I guess one other
option is, we can go over and have a vote on that on Friday morning. I
know that there are some Members of the Jewish faith who would like
very much on their holiday to be able to leave on Friday morning so
they can be with their families before the Jewish holiday begins. I
would like to honor that, but we are in a bind here.
If we finish this bill at a reasonable time, we can go to chemical
weapons at a reasonable time. We either get a time agreement, or vote
late tomorrow night, or vote on Friday. This is one time where the
leadership is not going to have a lot of options.
So I plead, once again, with our Members, let us be reasonable. This
is not the last train. We still have plenty of times to play games, if
we insist, on both sides of the aisle. I am not putting the other side
down. We have ours on there, you have yours. So let us agree to hold
hands and do this bill, and we can save all of our choice, lovely,
luscious amendments for the next bill or the next bill. We still have 3
weeks. We do not have to do it on this one. Then we can do two very
important bills--Treasury-Postal Service, Chemical Weapons Convention.
And I believe we can work on that in the morning. I have seen miracles
happen around here before. Maybe we could come up with one in the
morning.
Mr. REID. Would the majority leader yield?
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Might I just make one other point.
I appreciate the indulgence of the Senator from Nevada.
As I look at the list on both sides, the one thing I think the
majority leader will agree with me on, about two-thirds, if not three-
fourths of those amendments are legislative amendments. I believe we
made a very big mistake a year ago in overriding the Chair on the
question of legislating on appropriations bills.
I think we are paying a heavy price, and will continue to pay a heavy
price, so long as we continue to insist that even on appropriations
bills we can add anything to everything. And that issue will come back.
It stung us and it has caused us more problems in the last 2 years than
virtually anything else. I think it was a big mistake. Our Republican
colleagues insisted at the time to overrule the Chair and allow the
practice of legislating on appropriations bills, so these amendments
are fair game. But we are now paying the price, and continue to pay the
price so long as that issue becomes almost a joke with regard to these
appropriations bills.
So I think when we get back for the 105th Congress, and when we have
the opportunity again, in the majority, to deal with this issue, I hope
we can restore the rule.
Mr. LOTT. The majority will certainly look at that very closely
because we will be working in the majority with the minority. I think
this is one case where maybe we can agree and in fact change the rule
or take action to bring some reasonableness back to this area. I think
I agree with what the Senator is saying. Let us work together no
matter, you know, which party is in control to get that resolved.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

[[Page S10302]]

Mr. REID. While both leaders are on the floor, speaking for me, this
Senator, and for--sorry.
Mr. LOTT. I believe that is correct. I believe the Senator from Utah
had yielded to me.
Mr. REID. I am sorry.
Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to yield for a question, and then retain
my right to the floor.
Mr. REID. I want to make a brief statement. I apologize.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. While both leaders are here, I want them to understand
that, speaking for this Senator, Senator Levin and Senator Biden, we do
not intend to hold this bill up because of the amendment we have
offered. However, if we do not get a vote on our amendment, then we
have no alternative. We need an up-or-down vote on our amendment. And
the procedure, the way things are now before us, we will not be able to
do that. So we will agree to a time agreement, and be totally
reasonable, but we want an up-or-down vote on whether or not this
matter should be referred to the Court of Claims.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, would it be in order to ask unanimous
consent to get a time agreement, say, for additional debate of no more
than an hour and 20 minutes? I am prepared to offer one of the
amendments I was planning to offer in order to accommodate the schedule
if we could, perhaps, divide the next 90 minutes equally.
Mr. HATCH. I might add, it is going to take me a little bit of time
to rebut what they have said. I will certainly be amenable to trying.
Mr. DASCHLE. How much time does the Senator from Utah need?
Mr. HATCH. I have no idea. I imagine 45 minutes to an hour.
Mr. REID. I need about 15 minutes if I get an up-or-down vote on my
amendment sometime through this process.
Mr. DASCHLE. I would like about 10 minutes, so perhaps we could take
an hour on the Republican side and a half hour on the Democratic side.
Mr. LOTT. I believe the chairman of the committee has some comments.
Mr. DASCHLE. Could we ask unanimous consent that the time for the
amendment be divided two-thirds/one-third, providing the Republicans
with an hour, the Democrats with half an hour, beginning at 8:45, with
a vote to be held tomorrow morning.
Mr. LOTT. Is this on the Hatch amendment?
Mr. HATCH. And the Reid amendments, back to back, following the end
of the debate.
Let me say this: The proponents have taken 2 hours; I believe I can
finish in about an hour, and I will try to do it in less time than
that, but I do have to rebut what they have had to say because I think
it has been outrageous.
Mr. REID. If the Senator would yield again, I have no problem with
the reasonable suggestion made by the Democratic leader as long as we
have a vote on both amendments.
Mr. SHELBY. I wonder if the Democrat leader would yield?
Mr. DASCHLE. I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has the time.
Mr. HATCH. The parliamentary situation is that the Reid-Levin
amendment has been filed. We filed a second-degree amendment. Their
amendment would go to the Court of Claims. Frankly, I do not see any
reason why, if we went on my amendment, why you have to have a vote on
your amendment.
Mr. REID. That is the whole problem. We want a vote. We want the
Senate to vote as to whether that matter should be referred to the
Court of Claims. If the Senate says no, we will walk away from this.
If we only get a vote to keep this in the bill, then I think I can
speak for the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Delaware, we
are going to talk here a while.
Mr. HATCH. You are going to filibuster the bill over that issue?
This is legitimate. You filed an amendment; we filed a second-degree
amendment.
Mr. DASCHLE. Would it accommodate both to have two freestanding
amendments back to back, voted up or down at 9:30? That would
accommodate everyone and resolve the matter, and we could move on to
other issues.
Mr. HATCH. Fine with me.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe we can get an agreement to that. I
want to clarify the time that we are talking about.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield? I will move to table the Reid
amendment, but it would be a vote up or down.
Mr. REID. We understand. We would have an opportunity to offer our
amendment, and you could move to table it.
Mr. LOTT. I believe that would do it.
Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader for the suggestion in
trying to put that in motion here.
I ask unanimous consent that the time on the pending issue be limited
to 60 minutes under the control of Senator Hatch, with 50 minutes to
Senator Hatch and 10 minutes with Senator Shelby, and then 30 minutes
of time under the control of Senator Daschle or his designee, and votes
occur first on the amendment No. 5257, and then on or in relation to
the amendment of the Senator from Nevada, and that vote occur at 9:30.
Mr. DASCHLE. It would accommodate a Senator if that vote could occur
at 9:45.
Mr. LOTT. We would have that vote at 9:45. Every time we do that, it
pushes the Chemical Weapons Convention further back down, but the vote
is to occur at 9:45.
I also ask each amendment be in the first degree and no second-degree
amendments be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this has to be one of the most hypocritical
White Houses in this century. And that is really saying something.
Frankly, I think it is abominable, absolutely abominable. And my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are attempting to retry Mr.
Dale right here in the Senate. Senator Levin, the distinguished Senator
from Michigan, is even suggesting that Billy Dale should have been
found guilty.
Fortunately--fortunately--our system calls for a more equitable fair
process. Mr. Dale has been tried by a jury of his peers, and he was
acquitted in less than 2 hours. I think there is a principle called
double jeopardy. I am really amazed that after this man was smeared by
the White House--for greedy purposes, to help their buddies, the
Thomasons, and their relative, Ms. Cornelius--was put through an
abysmal trial that cost him $500,000. And this outfit is acting like
something should not be done.
I found the White House critical in this issue, and that is an
understatement. The fact is, these people were smeared. They were
treated improperly. They were abused. The FBI was abused, and it was
all done for the purposes of greed, so they could take care of their
buddies.
The fact of the matter is, if you look at what has happened here, it
is just pathetic. A memorandum we got from the White House admits to
the wrongdoing:

You all may dimly remember the Travel Office affair in
which a number of White House staff, many immature and self-
promoting, took impulsive and foolhardy actions to root out
problems at the beginning of the Clinton administration and
gallantly recommended they take over its operation.

Those comments were from the White House itself.
Now, let me read from the Watkins memorandum. This is an interim
White House memorandum. I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[Privileged and Confidential--Memorandum]

From: David Watkins.
Subject: Response to Internal White House Travel Office
Management Review.

In an effort to respond to the Internal Travel Office
Review, I have prepared this memorandum, which details my
response to the various conclusions of that Report. This is a
soul cleansing, carefully detailing the surrounding
circumstances and the pressures that demanded that action be
taken immediately. It is my first attempt to be sure the
record is straight, something I have not done in previous
conversations with investigators--where I have been
protective and vague as possible. I know you will carefully
consider the issues and concerns expressed herein.
As a preliminary matter, the procedure followed in
finalizing the report was needlessly unfair. Even in the
context of General Accounting Office audits and reviews, the
reviewed agency is afforded the opportunity to respond to the
report and criticisms prior to

[[Page S10303]]

release and publication. This is an important step which
allows inaccuracies or erroneous conclusions to be addressed
and corrected prior to publication, and more importantly,
allows the criticized party to respond to the contents of the
report. Unfortunately, in this case, neither I nor others
directly involved were afforded any opportunity to rebut the
contents and conclusions of the internal Review.
In this case, I was notified of the forthcoming reprimand
around 10 a.m. on July 2. But I received a copy of the report
shortly after noon the same day, and at the exact time from
that briefing the report was publicly released. I was never
afforded the opportunity to respond, and until this
memorandum, I have never responded to the report or its
contents.
With the recent release of GAO audits and the resultant
press coverage and criticism of my office, setting the record
straight on the Travel Office occurrences is important.

background

As you recall, an issue developed between the Secret
Service and the First Family in February and March requiring
resolution and action on your's and my part. The First Family
was anxious to have that situation immediately resolved, and
the First Lady in particular was extremely upset with the
delayed action in that case.
Likewise, in this case, the First Lady took interest in
having the Travel Office situation resolved quickly,
following Harry Thomason's bringing it to her attention.
Thomason briefed the First Lady on his suspicion that the
Travel Office was improperly funnelling business to a single
charter company, and told her that the functions of that
office could be easily replaced and reallocated.
Once this made it onto the First Lady's agenda, Vince
Foster became involved, and he and Harry Thomason regularly
informed me of her attention to the Travel Office situation--
as well as her insistence that the situation be resolved
immediately by replacing the Travel Office staff.
Foster regularly informed me that the First Lady was
concerned and desired action--the action desired was the
firing of the Travel Office staff. On Friday, while I was in
Memphis, Foster told me that it was important that I speak
directly with the First Lady that day. I called her that
evening and she conveyed to me in clear terms that her desire
for swift and clear action to resolve the situation. She
mentioned that Thomason had explained how the Travel Office
could be run after removing the current staff--that plan
included bringing in World Wide Travel and Penny Sample to
handle the basic travel functions, the actual actions taken
post dismissal and in light of that she thought immediate
action was in order.
On Monday morning, you came to my office and met with me
and Patsy Thomasson. At that meeting you explained that this
was on the First Lady's ``radar screen.'' The message you
conveyed to me was clear: immediate action must be taken. I
explained to you that I had decided to terminate the Travel
Office employees, and you expressed relief that we were
finally going to take action (to resolve the situation in
conformity with the First Lady's wishes). We both knew that
there would be hell to pay if, after our failure in the
Secret Service situation earlier, we failed to take swift and
decisive action in conformity with the First Lady's wishes.
You then approved the decision to terminate the Travel Office
staff, and I indicated I would send you a memorandum
outlining the decision and plan, which I did.
I have never stated all this so clearly before, but to form
a complete and accurate picture it must be kept in mind while
reading the specific criticisms of the Podesta Management
Review. I will now address those criticisms directly.

response to section ii ``discussion of principal issues'' of travel
office review

``Travel Office Management'' (Page 14):
``The review conducted by KPMG Peat Marwick uncovered
serious financial mismanagement.'' At .
At the strong recommendation of myself and others in my
office, KPMG Peat Marwick was brought in--instead of having
the FBI take over immediately--to review the financial
practices of the Travel Office. I concurred in Peat Marwick's
analysis and conclusions: Management of the Travel Office was
abysmal.

``Treatment of the Travel Office Employees'' (Page 15):
``While all White House Office employees serve at the
pleasure of the President, the abrupt manner of dismissal of
the Travel Office employees was unnecessary and
insensitive.'' At ____.
In the conversation with the Travel Office staff notifying
them of their termination, I explained that a review of the
Travel Office operations had always been planned to conform
to the general review process implemented across the White
House administrative offices and the Office of
Administration. I further explained my decision to terminate
them; I explained that from a management perspective, in this
case it was best to relieve them all immediately from their
jobs and provide them a additional two weeks in pay. I
informed them of this and asked them to leave immediately.
The tone was firm, with emphasis on the mismanagement
recounted in the Peat Marwick report. I explained that in
light of that mismanagement, it was best to dismiss the
entire office.
The allegation in the report that this was insensitive is
wrong. These employees work at the pleasure of the President
and all in the White House Office should understand that
there is extremely low tolerance for the severely negligent
and unaccountable procedures followed in that office. In
light of the First Lady's insistence for immediate action and
your concurrence, the abrupt manner of dismissal, from my
perspective, was the only option.
``Moreover, the Peat Marwick report did not furnished
efficient cause for terminating the employees without
financial authority. As a legal matter, the White House has
this right to terminate an employee without cause. In this
case, however, the White House asserted that this termination
of all seven was for cause. Based on the information
available, this assertion was inappropriate with respect to
the employees who did not exercise financial authority. . . .
Abuses cause, in some humans approach was in order. For
example, even if it were decided that the Travel Office would
operate more efficiently with a reorganized, smaller staff,
an effort could have been made to locate other federal
employment for those who would be displace.'' At 15.
As early as February, the intent of Management and
Administration was to review and reorganize the Travel Office
before October 1 into a leaner operation--just as with every
other office within the domain of Management and
Administration, from the Photo Office to the Telephone Office
to the Travel Office. That remained the plan until the
intense pressures surrounding this incident arose in May. If
given time to develop, the original plan to reorganize the
Travel Office for a smooth transition in September would have
allowed the Travel Office employees to seek other federal
placement, along with other Executive Office of the President
staff, in anticipation of the end of the fiscal year staff
cuts; however, when pressure began to build for immediate
action in the Travel Office, the long-term plans were short-
circuited.
``The other major White House mistake in the treatment of
the former Travel Office employees was in tarnishing their
reputations. This resulted, in discussed above, from the
inappropriate disclosure of an FBI investigation into
potential wrongdoing in the Travel Office. (p. 15) * * * It
was a mistake for the White House to publicly discuss FBI
involvement, which led to the disclosure of the FBI
investigations. * * * The talking points prepared by Watkins'
office for the press office stated that the White House had
asked the FBI to investigate. Eller had also sanctioned
the FBI in an earlier draft of talking points. In making
that reference, Watkins and Eller were insensitive to the
effect such reference can have on the reputation of an
innocent person. This mistake was compounded when Fouter's
and Kennedy's instruction to eliminate the FBI reference
was not carried out. Watkins did attempt to reach Myers,
and Eller himself omitted the FBI references in his own
background press briefings the morning of May 19. However,
neither ensured that Myers avoided the reference.'' At 18.
Revealing the ongoing FBI investigation was insensitive,
but that fact comprised one sentence in a draft version of
talking points drafted by one of my staff and distributed for
comment on the morning of May 19--the day of the termination.
The talking points were distributed to Foster, Kennedy,
Myers, and Eller with the expectation that we would have
until the 2 o'clock press briefing to get the kinks worked
out of the talking points. As soon as the suggestion came to
delete the reference to the FBI, it was done. I immediately
went to see Myers to inform her of the change and sensitivity
to the ongoing investigation, but she had gone to the Hill
with the President. I struck that sentence from Eller's copy
and asked him to inform Myers. As soon as Myers returned from
the Hill, prior to noon--more than an hour before the press
briefing--I proceeded to her office and told her not to
mention the FBI investigation She informed me that it was too
late. She had already responded by phone to a reporter's
inquiry by phone.
Thus, this was a mistake made on my part because I was not
intuitive enough to take the talking points drafted by one of
my staff and realize that the FBI investigation should not be
mentioned--despite the strong support this provided for White
House actions.
``Catherine Cornelius also played a role in the dismissal
of the Travel Office employees, and she to had a personnel
stake in the outcome. As the three memos she wrote on the
Travel Office attest, who was eager to work in and, if
possible, manage the Office. Her proposal to reorganize the
travel office was appropriate and would be considered usual
to any transition process. But her role in the decision-
making process after she came, in effect, an `accuser' of the
Travel Office employees, by collecting documents and alleging
possible wrongdoing, was inappropriate. * * * [E]very effort
should be made to insulate the federal government's
management decisions from even the appearance that personal
interests have played a role in the outcome of those
decisions.'' At 20.
Catherine Cornelius had no part in the dismissals. I put no
stock in most of what Cornelius told me except to the degree
it was factual. Her arguments for dismissal and
reorganization had absolutely no bearing on the final
decision to terminate the employees. If her input had been
respected, the need for Peat Marwick would have been
negligible, but in light of her self-interest and

[[Page S10304]]

her tendency to exaggerate, I decided to rely exclusively on
a professional accounting firm. Catherine Cornelius, despite
the Review's suggestion to the contrary, had absolutely no
role in the decision-making process, and was in no danger of
being placed in charge of the Travel Office. My intent all
along was to put a trained financial manager over all the
White House administrative operations, including the Travel
Office.
When I assigned Catherine to the Travel Office, I did ask
her to provide a report to me on May 15 based on her previous
experience and actual experience in the Travel Office. She
was placed in the Travel Office because of her prior
experience in that area and a need to move her out of my
immediate office--where she had become a liability to daily
operations. Having had extensive experience with Catherine, I
knew that her report would contain unworkable
recommendations, but as I have in the past, I expected to
distill those with which I disagreed from those I thought
helpful. Unfortunately, due to her desire to revamp the
Travel Office in her own likeness, Catherine may have ignored
my intent to carefully review and scrutinize any
recommendations made.
After Catherine became an ``accuser'' of the Travel Office
staff, her input was merely on a factual level. I interviewed
her to derive the factual basis of her allegations and for
facts about the tasks performed by the Travel Office staff,
but never asked for other, non-factual input other than the
May 15 report I was expecting. All views she expressed were
evaluated in light of her known bias. To put it simply, she
had no impact on the decision-making process other than by
providing factual information.
``The White House took several actions that demonstrated an
insensitivity to the appearance of favoritism. Hiring World
Wide Travel on a no-bid basis--even as an interim, stop-gap
measure--created the appearance of favoritism toward a local
friend from the campaign. World Wide's president, Betta
Carney, is a long-time acquaintance of Watkins. Watkins'
Little Rock advertising agency was a client of World Wide in
the 1970s and World Wide was a client of Watkins' agency
during that time period.'' At 20.
Part of the plan for immediate replacement of the Travel
Office staff was use of World Wide Travel Service to book
commercial flights for the Office. This aspect of the plan
was discussed with all interested parties, and all concurred
with knowledge that World Wide had been the campaign's travel
agent. This made the most sense due to the fact that we could
not have publicly solicited bids in light of confidentiality
concerns and when we had ongoing business needs that had to
be taken care of immediately following the terminations.
As for my longtime acquaintance with Betta Carney and World
Wide Travel, I must point to my experience in the business
world. There, reliance on a firm from whom one has received
exceptional service is the rule.
As well, since the time I was a client of World Wide's and
since World Wide was a client of my advertising agency in the
1970s, I have personally and professionally used at least
half a dozen other travel services. So, any suggestion that
calling them in this case derived from that history is
absurd, and the media suggestions of improper favoritism were
likewise absurd.
We had recent experience with World Wide, and based on that
experience I knew we could rely on them for confidentiality
in handling and preparing to handle the Travel Office
business, until the business could be subject to full and
open competition.
``None of this implies any improper conduct by World Wide,
which is a well-established, successful travel agency,
twenty-third largest in the country. World Wide executives
understood that they could secure White House business only
through an open, competitive bidding process. But the
impression of favoring a local supporter was impossible to
dispel.''
At this point in the sequence of events, with the current
plan approved by the First Lady and yourself including resort
to World Wide Travel, it would have unnecessarily heightened
confusion to recruit an unknown travel service. Again, a
primary source of the problem was the abruptness caused by
the calls for immediate action in the Travel Office and the
at least daily inquiries. If my plan to slowly shift as the
fiscal year came to a close had remained intact, a travel
agent would have been procured in a more transparent fashion.
However, since at the time of hiring World Wide it was known
that they had a GSA contract, hiring World Wide was not as
questionable or ``non-competitive'' as the Report or the
press would have one believe.
``Bringing in Penny Sample, President of Air Advantage, to
handle press charters on a no-bid, volunteer basis furthered
the appearance that the White House was trying to help its
friends. Sample was the Clinton-Gore campaign's charter
broker and a close associate of Darnell Martens. This implies
no improper conduct on Sample's part, but, again, created an
appearance of favoritism.'' At 20.
Like World Wide Travel, Penny Sample was part of the short-
term plan for running the Travel Office after the
terminations. Since she was willing to volunteer her services
without her or her company receiving any compensation--
because we realized, like they did, that they would be
conflicted out of virtually all White House business--we
believed the conflicts and appearance of favoritism issue had
been sufficiently addressed. Again, we did not believe it to
be favoritism to have a former service provider for the
campaign volunteer to assist the White House.

``White House Management'' (Page 21):
``The White House made a number of management mistakes in
handling the Travel Office.''

``Lax Procedures''
``The responsibility for Thomason's influence on the Travel
Office incident must be attributed to White House management.
Thomason should have avoided continued involvement in a
matter in which his business partner and his friends in the
charter business stood to benefit and in which there was an
appearance of financial conflict of interest. But lax
procedures allowed his continued participation in the
process. . . . There should be better management control with
respect to the mission that any non-White House staff person
is brought in to carry out. Permitting Thomason--or any non-
staff person who comes in on special assignment--to work on
problems outside the scope of his or her assignment is not a
good practice.'' At 21.
Management and Administration had no part in bringing
Thomason into the White House. In fact, the responsible
office failed or intentionally neglected to inform Management
and Administration of the nature of his work. Contact with
this Office on the subject consisted only of the First Lady's
Office calling to insist on immediate access for Thomason.

``Placing Cornelius in Travel Office.''
``Given Cornelius' personal interest in running the Travel
Office, Watkins should not have placed her in the Office to
make recommendations on how the Office should be
structured.''
As stated above, Catherine was placed in the Travel Office
because of her experience in travel and to allow her to make
a meaningful and significant contribution to this
Administration. The original assignment was made to see if
she would work there permanently--if she liked that work and
if it likewise suited her. The report I asked her to draft
and provide on May 15 was in no way the driving force for her
assignment to the office, it was simply a way to help
determine her long-term suitability. She was placed in that
office because of her extensive experience since October 1991
in coordinating travel for then-candidate Bill Clinton. She
was not placed in the Travel Office primarily to make
recommendations on its future structure.
``Watkins compounded the problem where in responses to
Thomason's complaints, he asked Cornelius to be alert to
possible wrongdoing or corruption. Cornelius lacked the
experience or preparation for this role. Nor was she given my
guidance.'' At 21.
Catherine was not asked to investigate or document
wrongdoing by the Travel Office staff. I understood that she
lacked experience to perform such a task. Catherine was
merely asked to observe what transpired in the Travel
Office--nothing further was requested or expected. Special
training is not needed to keep one's eyes and ears open, to
observe. I never asked her to collect documents or other
information; she undertook this of her own volition.
``If, in April, Watkins thought the allegations reported by
Thomason should be looked at more seriously, he should have
done so in a more professional manner.'' At 21.
The suggestion that this could be more professionally
handled is absurd. I noted the allegations, but thought they
could wait for review--and knew they would be examined--
during the course of the planned internal review of the
Travel Office. For that reason, no action was taken other
than to ask to Catherine to ``keep her eyes and ears open.''

``Poor Planning.''
``There was no adequate plan in place to manage the Travel
Office in the aftermath of the dismissals.'' At 21.
Harry Thomason indicated that he could put a more efficient
structure in place in an hour's time to handle all the tasks
of the Travel Office. While I believed that my original plan
to carefully review the Travel Office would best serve the
White House, when I spoke with the First Lady on Friday
night, May 14, she cited Thomason's plan as support for the
need for immediate action. That action involved utilizing
World Wide Travel and Penny Sample in the short term. As
well, in my memo to you on May 17 explaining my intent to
terminate the Travel Office employees the next day, the
intention to use World Wide Travel was outlined. You approved
this action based on this memo prior to the actual
terminations.
``For example, no one in the decision-making chain spoke to
the White House press and press advance staff members who
worked closely with the Travel Office employees, knew the
employees there, understood the services they provided and
the degree to which they were relied upon by members of the
travelling press and other considerations. None was contacted
by Watkins.'' At 22.
In light of the need for absolute confidentiality, it would
have been foolhardy to consult the press or press advance
staffs. From the staff review and Catherine Cornelius'
experience (this is the primary area where her factual
expertise was relied upon), we in fact did know the services
that the Travel Office staff performed. Catherine Cornelius
and Harry Thomason regularly and repeatedly reassured me that
the press charter function

[[Page S10305]]

could easily be assumed with the assistance of Penny Sample.
``Thus, plans to replace these aspects of the Travel Office
functions were in place prior to the dismissals. Then, when
the need for immediate replacement became evident, I
committed to provide whatever manpower was needed to perform
the services the Travel Office staff had performed.
Immediately following the dismissals, meetings were held
with the press and press advance staff to make all necessary
arrangements for upcoming trips. These discussions came after
the fact, but were accompanied with a commitment from my
office for all necessary resources to perform the job.
``The absence of a plan prompted the last-minute use of
World Wide Travel and Penny Sample of Air Advantage, which
fueled the charges of favoritism already discussed.'' At 22.
As explained above, the plan was to use World Wide Travel
and Penny Sample; there was no absence of a plan. Because of
the need for confidentiality and the need for quick action,
reliance on those with whom we had experience seemed the only
rational decision. Having performed superbly in the campaign
and in light of our need for immediate travel agent support--
due to the pressure for immediate action from several
quarters--we decided the plan would include short-term
reliance on World Wide Travel.
I would have much preferred to have my staff carefully
review the Travel Office and make a detailed business plan
for the new fiscal year. This proved impossible, though, when
the pressure for action from the First Lady and you became
irresistible. This demand for immediate action forced me to
accept hastily formulated plans for hasty, inadvisable
action.

``Overview.''
``The management problems in the handling of the Travel
Office extended beyond the White House Office of Management
and Administration. The Chief of Staff and the White House
Counsel's Office had the opportunity to contain the momentum
of the incident, but did not take adequate advantage of this
opportunity.'' At 22.
``The process should have been handled in a more careful,
deliberate fashion. Before any decision was made, the Travel
Office employees should have been interviewed and other White
House staff who understood the operations of the Travel
Office should have been consulted. If dismissals were deemed
appropriate, a new structure should have been designed and
readied for implementation before any action was taken.
Throughout, the process should have treated the Travel Office
employees with sensitivity and decency.'' At 22.
As stated above, I too would have much preferred to have my
staff carefully review the Travel Office and formulate a
detailed business plan for the new fiscal year. This proved
impossible, though, when pressure for action became
irresistible. It forced me to accept hastily formulated plans
for hasty, inadvisable action.

conclusion

I think all this makes clear that the Travel Office
incident was driven by pressures for action originating
outside my Office. If I thought I could have resisted those
pressures, undertaken more considered action, and remained in
the White House, I certainly would have done so. But after
the Secret Service incident, it was made clear that I must
more forcefully and immediately follow the direction of the
First Family. I was convinced that failure to take immediate
action in this case would have been directly contrary to the
wishes of the First Lady, something that would not have been
tolerated in light of the Secret Service incident earlier in
the year.
For this reason, I was forced to undertake the Travel
Office reorganization without a business plan firmly in
hand--something I had never before done in years as a
management consultant, where such plans were my business.
All failings outlined in the Podesta Management Review were
either mistaken and groundless criticism, or were based on
actions dictated by the need for instant action. This
reorganization required more careful review, but in this case
that possibility was foreclosed. Delaying action was beyond
my control.

Mr. HATCH. I am absolutely astounded that people would come here and
try to try Billy Dale again.
I am now going to quote Mr. Watkins:

On Monday morning, you came to my office and met with me
and Patsy Thomasson. At that meeting, you explained this was
on the First Lady's radar screen. The message you conveyed to
me was clear: immediate action must be taken. I explained to
you that I had decided to terminate the Travel Office
employees, and you expressed relief that we were finally
going to take action (to resolve the situation in conformity
with the First Lady's wishes.) We both knew that there would
be hell to pay if after our failure in the Secret Service
situation earlier, we failed to take swift and decisive
action in conformity with the First Lady's wishes. You then
approved the decision to terminate the Travel Office staff,
and I indicated I would send you a memorandum outlining the
decision and plan, which I did.

This is a memorandum, which is marked privileged and confidential, is
from David Watkins in response to the internal White House Travel
Office Management Review. The White House even admits they were doing
the wrong things.
The distinguished Senator from Michigan claims this case should be
referred to the Claims Court because the Senate has not done a report
on the issue. I disagree: the facts in this case are not in dispute.
The reason you have a Claims Court proceedings is because you have
disputed facts. In this case, the facts are not in dispute.
And these facts have been well-documented: no less than four reports
have been done on this issue, as well as 2 years' worth of
investigations and hearings, and a debate on the floor of this chamber
that was filibustered when the bill was filibustered as a freestanding
bill. Two years' worth of investigations and hearings on the House side
has established the facts. The only reason to refer this case to the
claims court would be if the facts were in question. The facts, in this
instance, are not even in dispute.
I might also add that the other side has referred to a document that,
for all intents and purposes, is a privileged document that should
never have been made public. It is the prosecutor's memorandum.
Somebody has violated the most sacred canons of ethics in giving a
prosecutor's memorandum, which tells the Government's side of the case.
My colleagues have read from it like it is fact, when, in fact, it
isn't fact. They refer to two documents--one is the ``prosecution
memorandum,'' and the other is a ``plea agreement.''
Now, where did they get those documents? Those documents are not
permitted to be given to anybody. Somebody at Justice or the
prosecutor's office has violated the most sacred canons of ethics,
giving a memorandum of one side of the case, which may or may not be
the true facts with regard to the other side. In this case, they are
not the true facts. They are relying on confidential documents that
were given improperly--through the Department of Justice, I presume.
The Administration ought to know better than that.
Those documents are protected under the Department of Justice' own
regulations. Once again, this is a politicization of the Justice
Department, or the prosecutor's office, one or the other. There is no
other way it could be. If the Justice Department has allowed White
House people to get these documents, which apparently has been the case
here, so they could leak them to Members of Congress to smear again
Billy Dale and his colleagues, then that is further evidence of
hypocrisy.
One thing I found interesting, is the quote the distinguished Senator
from Nevada has on the chart behind him. Notably, it is only part of
the quote. Let me read the whole quote. I am reading from a response
from Billy Dale's lawyer to an op ed written by Robert Bennett to the
Wall Street Journal. In the op ed, Mr. Bennett suggested that Billy
Dale had entered a plea agreement of guilty, which he never did. Mr.
Bennett was incorrect in his suggestion that the letter of the counsel
for Billy Dale of November 30, 1994, constituted a willingness by Billy
Dale to admit the charge of embezzlement of which he was acquitted. The
attorney for Billy Dale criticized Mr. Bennett because he said that Mr.
Bennett accurately quoted the first sentence of that letter which
stated that Mr. Dale was prepared to enter a plea of guilty to one
single count under 18 U.S.C. 654. However, Mr. Bennett, as well as my
friend from Nevada on his chart, chose to omit the sentence that
immediately follows. That sentence says that Mr. Dale would not admit
to any intent to defraud or to permanently deprive anyone of the money
that was represented by the checks he deposited in his personal
account.
This admission is imperative in order for the Government to have an
actual plea. In order to take a plea, Mr. Dale would have had to have
admitted or pled guilty to defrauding the Government. Mr. Dale refused
to do that. Now, the quote illustrated by the distinguished Senator
from Nevada doesn't give the full facts. Instead of giving the full
facts, the distinguished Senator from Nevada is attempting to retry Mr.
Dale's case on the Senate floor. I think that it is wholly improper,
especially when a jury tried it

[[Page S10306]]

and Mr. Dale was acquitted within 2 hours.
I will tell you one more thing. I am going to refer the matter of the
leaking of confidential documents by the Administration to the Office
of Professional Responsibility, because the Justice Department has
acted irresponsibly, or the prosecutor's office has acted
irresponsibly.
I oppose the Reid amendment that would strike the provision to
reimburse Billy Dale and to refer his case to the claims court. As I
reiterated time and again, reimbursement of these legal fees simply
remedies the grave miscarriage of justice that resulted in the
investigation of Billy Dale and the other former White House Travel
Office employees, which they are willing to reimburse. They are
unwilling to admit, as really gentlemen ought to, that they have
smeared this man, that the White House deliberately did it, that they
were acting pursuant to Mrs. Clinton's demands, according to Watkins--
that was a memorandum written at or near the time of the demands--that
the White House acted out of greed, and that they put Mr. Dale through
a half-million dollars of legal fees, not to speak of the loss of
reputation, the bad publicity, the tremendous strain of going through a
criminal trial when they knew he did nothing wrong. Then, my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle come here to the floor of the Senate and
claim that Mr. Dale entered a plea of guilty.

Let me tell you something. I have been around courtrooms for many
years of my life. I know a number of people who weren't guilty that
would enter a plea to some really minor, lesser count so that they
would not get bled to death with attorney's fees, court costs, ulcers,
bad health, ruination of the family, and 101 other things that happen.
Anybody that doesn't understand that has never been in a court of law,
or at least doesn't understand, or just plain isn't telling the truth.
For many months, the Congress and the Nation believed President
Clinton had supported Mr. Dale's reimbursement. In fact, I publicly
commended the President on numerous occasions for his equitable
decision to sign the bill if we would pass it up here. Unfortunately, I
understand the President Clinton has chosen to retract his support for
such reimbursement. That is why I call this a hypocritical White House.
Under these facts and circumstances, knowing what has transpired, and
knowing the hell they put these people through, not to be willing to
reimburse them is just unbelievable.
I am very disappointed that the President has changed his position on
this issue, because passing this legislation is the right thing to do.
After being fired, the Travel Office employees were forced to seek
legal representation to defend themselves against a Federal criminal
investigation in which they had become targets. These public servants
became the victims of unjust and inappropriate abuse of Federal law
enforcement by some White House officials. I continue to be outraged by
the arrogance of power demonstrated by this Administration in this
matter.
The way these individuals were fired and investigated was
unconscionable. Over the course of the last several months, I have
worked in a bipartisan effort to get a freestanding Billy Dale
reimbursement measure passed. I wanted to pass this measure months ago
so that President Clinton could put this ordeal behind him. He said he
would sign it. But the Senate has continued to be met with resistance
by some Members on the other side of the aisle. First, my colleagues
wanted to offer a GATT amendment to the proposal and then they wanted
to offer a minimum wage amendment. Then we worked together to advance
their objectives on both the GATT and minimum wage issues. We dealt
with both of them in the Senate.
Having worked in a bipartisan manner, I thought the Senate would be
able to pass a freestanding bill without any additional delays. The
last time we tried to bring up this bill, the distinguished minority
leader objected, stating Mr. Dale had a fee arrangement with his
lawyers that would obligate him to pay only part of his bill, which,
for the record, is not true. As well, we were told that some Members on
the other side of the aisle had additional amendments--amendments which
to this day we have not seen.
Accordingly, Senator Shelby, the chairman of the Treasury-Postal
Subcommittee took this initiative by incorporating the Dale measure in
this appropriations bill. Yet, once again, this is an effort to thwart
a proposal to restore Dale and his colleagues to the position they were
in before being attacked by ``friends'' of President and Mrs. Clinton
and their allies on the White House staff.
Mr. Dale and his Travel Office colleagues served at the pleasure of
the President. Some of the employees served as many as eight different
Presidents, both Republican and Democrat. They provided years of
faithful service. For this service, they were fired based upon trumped
up charges by political ``friends'' of the President and the First
Lady. These loyal public servants were then investigated by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Justice, and the Internal
Revenue Service. The FBI was intimidated to do this by none other than
Mr. Kennedy at the White House, who no longer is there--and for good
reason. Mr. Dale was subsequently indicted and prosecuted for
embezzlement. On December 1, 1995, after 2\1/2\ years of being
investigated by Federal agencies, as well as incurring tremendous legal
expenses, Mr. Dale was found not guilty of all charges after only 2
hours of jury deliberation.
You would think our colleagues on the other side would give
credibility to that and not try to retry him here in the U.S. Senate.
It is unseemly. This questionable use of the Federal criminal justice
system created a situation where Mr. Dale had to spend some $500,000 on
attorney's fees and even consider accepting a plea agreement, when he
had committed no crime, but with the express provision that he would
not plead guilty to embezzlement. To make matters worse, the
administration went so far as to leak, in violation of its own
regulations, a confidential letter in which Mr. Dale's attorney
discussed the notion of a plea agreement--something that goes on in
almost every criminal case where there is a chance of resolving a case
by settlement.
That is what was involved here in that matter.
Mr. Dale's attorney, on behalf of his client, offered to end the case
but expressly stated that Mr. Dale would not admit that he converted or
stole funds, the necessary elements for an embezzlement prosecution.
Faced with the ruinous legal costs, Mr. Dale's lawyers explored the
possibility of a settlement, but not as an admission of guilt. The
Department of Justice's leaking of the plea agreement discussion was
irresponsible. But, this administration does have a troubling record of
failing to respect the privacy of individuals. The President himself
unfairly repeated information derived from this unconscionable leak,
suggesting that the confidential discussions of a possible plea bargain
with the prosecutors in the face of his own administration's outrageous
abuse of the FBI should somehow count against Mr. Dale.
Mr. Dale and his colleagues recently found themselves in the news
again after trying to put the circumstances of this behind them. It was
discovered that Mr. Dale's FBI background file was requested by the
White House Personnel Security Office 7 months after he was fired. It
now appears that the Travel Office Seven were not only fired
unjustifiably but in some cases their personal background file
summaries were inappropriately requested and possibly reviewed. Some
think the whole 900 files that were improperly requested--and possibly
reviewed; many of which were reviewed--was as a result of trying to get
Billy Dale.
So the invasion of privacy that these individuals have had to endure
continued, and to have to put up with these arguments here today, again
I say it is unseemly.
What makes President Clinton's opposition to the reimbursement to Mr.
Dale all the more astonishing is the fact that no less than 23 White
House employees have requested Federal reimbursement of counsel fees in
connection with congressional or independent counsel investigations
into the White House Travel Office, or Whitewater. Among those who have
requested reimbursement are Thomas (Mack) McLarty, George
Stephanopoulos, John Podesta, Ricki Seidman, and Bruce

[[Page S10307]]

Lindsay --just to mention a few of the 23.
A number of these requests have been approved by the Clinton Justice
Department. For instance, Mr. Podesta. I am glad they did in the case
of Mr. Podesta. And the Department has said, ``We are continuing to
process requests and anticipate acting on some of them in the near
future.''
I ask unanimous consent that a letter to me from the Department of
Justice dated September 6, and a memorandum from the Department of
Justice to Lisa Kaufman, Senior Investigative Counsel of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, dated September 5, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Legislative Affairs,

Washington, DC, September 6, 1996.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This supplements our prior informal
responses to your letter, dated August 21, 1996, which
requested documents and information about recent assertions
of executive privilege and requests for reimbursement of
private counsel fees arising from certain congressional and
Independent Counsel inquiries. We have already provided on an
expedited basis the principal documents that are responsive
to the first two items of your request. This letter provides
further information regarding those two items, as well as
information and documents regarding the remaining items. We
hope that what we are providing today will be sufficient to
complete our response to your request, but we would be
pleased to work with Committee staff if you desire additional
documents or information.
The first two items of your request seek documents and
information concerning the President's two assertions of
executive privilege in May 1996 in response to a subpoena
issued to the White House by the House Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight. This past Friday, August 30,
1996, we provided your staff copies of the submissions to the
House Committee on May 9 and May 30, 1996, informing the
Committee of the President's privilege assertions. The
submissions include the Attorney General's two letter
opinions to the President, dated May 8 and May 23, 1996,
setting forth the legal basis for the assertions. These
documents should provide you with a good understanding of the
purpose and scope of the privilege assertions.
The first of the President's assertions of executive
privilege, on May 8th, was a protective assertion of
privilege over the entire group of confidential White House
Counsel's Office documents being sought by House Committee at
that time, to be effective only for such time as was
necessary for the review and consultations required to
determine whether to make a conclusive claim of privilege for
particular documents. The Attorney General's May 8th letter
to the President summarizes the circumstances necessitating
the protective assertion:
``The subpoena covers a large volume of confidential White
House Counsel's Office documents. The Counsel to the
President notified the Chairman of the Committee today that
he was invoking the procedures of the standing directive
governing consideration of whether to assert executive
privilege, President Reagan's memorandum of November 4, 1982,
and that he specifically requested, pursuant to paragraph 5
of that directive, that the Committee hold its subpoena in
abeyance pending a final Presidential decision on the matter.
This request was necessitated by the deadline imposed by the
Chairman, the volume of documents that must be specifically
and individually reviewed for possible assertion of
privilege, and the need under the directive to consult with
the Attorney General, on the basis of that review, before
presenting the matter to the President for a final
determination. The Chairman rejected the request and
indicated that he intends to proceed with a Committee vote on
the contempt citation tomorrow.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The background for the protective assertion of privilege
is described in letters from the White House to the House
Committee. The subpoena issued by the House Committee in
January of this year sought a large number of confidential
documents held by the White House Counsel's Office. These
included confidential deliberative, attorney-client and
attorney work-product materials prepared by the Counsel's
Office in response to ongoing congressional and independent
counsel investigations, as well as other confidential
materials such as the personnel files of individual
employees. In February, the Counsel to the President met with
the Committee Chairman seeking to negotiate an accommodation.
We understand that the Counsel to the President offered the
Committee at that time the opportunity to review all of the
personnel files (which included Mr. Dale's file), but raised
objections to making available certain deliberative,
attorney-client and attorney work product materials and made
an accommodation proposal with respect to these materials.
The Committee Chairman agreed to consider the proposals and
respond, but no response was received until May 2nd, when the
Committee indicated it would vote on May 9th on whether to
hold the Counsel to the President in contempt of Congress,
unless all withheld documents were turned over beforehand.
This one-week notice provided the White House Counsel's
Office insufficient time to review all of the materials and
consider, together with the Attorney General, whether
assertion of executive privilege with respect to particular
documents was warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Attorney General's letter went on to advise the
President as follows:
``Based on these circumstances, it is my legal judgment
that executive privilege may properly be asserted with
respect to the entire set of White House Counsel's Office
documents currently being withheld from the Committee,
pending a final Presidential decision on the matter. This
would be a protective assertion of executive privilege
designed to ensure your ability to make a final decision,
after consultation with the Attorney General, as to which
specific documents are deserving of a conclusive claim of
executive privilege.''
The Counsel to the President's letter to the Committee
Chairman the following day, May 9th, informed the Committee
of the President's assertion of executive privilege:
``Consistent with [the Attorney General's letter opinion],
the President has directed me to inform you that he invokes
executive privilege, as a protective matter, with respect to
all documents in the categories identified [previously in the
letter], until such time as the President, after consultation
with the Attorney General, makes a final decision as to which
specific documents require a claim of executive privilege. *
* *
``I hereby request that your Committee hold its request in
abeyance until such time as a Presidential decision as to
executive privilege has been made with respect to specific,
individual documents.''
The review and consultation process implemented after the
May 8th protective assertion of privilege was as follows: The
White House Counsel's Office conducted a specific review of
all withheld documents and made an initial determination as
to which particular documents should be considered further
for inclusion in a conclusive assertion of privilege. Then,
only the documents that the Counsel's Office had determined
as a preliminary matter should be considered further for the
conclusive assertion were presented to the Department for the
required consultation with the Attorney General.
After this process was completed, the President made a
conclusive assertion of privilege with respect to particular
documents. The Counsel to the President's May 30th letter
informed the Committee of the President's assertion of
privilege with respect to the specified documents and also
produced to the Committee the remaining documents that had
been subject to the May 8th protective assertion of
privilege. The Counsel's May 30th letter also enclosed the
Attorney General's May 23rd letter to the President setting
forth her opinion that executive privilege could properly
be asserted with respect to the specified documents.
Although the entirety of the letters from the Counsel to
the President and the Attorney General should be reviewed
in order to understand the rationale for the conclusive
assertion of privilege, the essential separation of powers
and confidentiality concerns underlying the claim are
summarized in the following passage from the Attorney
General's letter to the President:
``The Counsel to the President is appropriately concerned
that the Committee's demand raises significant separation of
powers concerns and that compliance with it beyond the
accommodations already reached with the Committee would
compromise the ability of his Office to advise and assist the
President in connection with the pending Committee and
Independent Counsel investigations. It would also have a
chilling effect on the Office's discharge of its
responsibilities in future congressional investigations, and
in all of its other areas of responsibility. I agree that the
ability of the White House Counsel's Office to serve the
President would be significantly impaired if the
confidentiality of its communications and work-product is not
protected, especially where the confidential documents are
prepared in order to assist the President and his staff in
responding to an investigation by the entity seeking the
documents. Impairing the ability of the Counsel's Office to
perform its important functions for the President would in
turn impair the ability of you and future Presidents to carry
out your constitutional responsibilities.
``The Supreme Court has expressly (and unanimously)
recognized that the Constitution gives the President the
power to protect the confidentiality of White House
communications. This power is rooted in the ``need for
protection of communications between high Government
officials and those who advise and assist them in the
performance of their manifold duties.'' United States v.
Nixon. 418 U.S. 683, 705 (1974). ``A President and those who
assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the
process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so
in a way many would be unwilling to express except
privately.'' Id. at 708. Executive privilege applies to these
White House Counsel's Office documents because of their
deliberative nature, and because they fall within the scope
of the attorney-client privilege and the work-product
doctrine, see Upjohn Co. V. United States, 449 U.S. 383
(1981); Hichman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947). Both the
attorney-client privileges and the work-product doctrine
are subsumed under executive privilege.'' See Response to
Congressional Requests for Information Regarding Decisions
made Under the Independent Counsel Act, 10 Op. O.L.C. 68,
78 & n.17 (1986); Confidentiality of the Attorney
General's Communications in Counseling the President, 6
Op. O.L.C. 481, 490 & n.17, 494 & n.24 (1982).

[[Page S10308]]

As for the particular focus of your inquiry, the White
House Counsel's Office determined during the initial stage of
the review process following the protective assertion of
privilege to exclude from further consideration for the
conclusive assertion of privilege the set of personnel
records it had earlier called to the Committee's attention
(see note 1, supra). It is our understanding that Mr. Dale's
personnel file, including FBI-related material, was among
these personnel records. Because of this determination by the
Counsel's Office, the personnel records were not presented to
the Department for review and they were among the documents
the White House produced to the House Committee on May 30th.
Thus, there was never an occasion for the Department to be
consulted concerning the possibility of an assertion of
executive privilege with respect to FBI-related material
contained in Mr. Dale's personnel file. Accordingly, we have
no documents responsive to your request for ``documents
discussing or analyzing whether executive privilege could be
asserted with respect to'' such material.
On Thursday, September 5, 1996, we provided information and
three documents responsive to the third and fourth items of
your request. A copy of our memorandum to Committee staff is
enclosed along with an additional copy of the accompanying
documents. In summary, the following FBI employees have
requested representation with regard to the White House
Travel Office matter: James Bourke, David Bowie, John
Collingwood, Patrick Foran, Richard Hildreth, Barbara King,
Peggy Larson, Sharon MacGargle, Patrick Maloy, Larry Potts,
Thomas Renaghan, Therese Rodrique, Gregory Schwarz, Dennis
Sculimbrene, Cecilia Woods. The requests of Bourke, Bowie,
Collingwood, Foran, Larson, MacGargle, Potts, Renaghan,
Schwarz, Sculimbrene, and Woods have been approved. The
remaining requests have been held in abeyance because we have
been advised that no congressional depositions are
anticipated at this time. Enclosed are FBI records regarding
these requests.
In addition, Sherry Carner and Janice George initially
requested reimbursement for private counsel fees; however,
the House Committee ultimately allowed them to be accompanied
by FBI counsel, so their requests were withdrawn.
We have completed consultation with the White House and the
Independent Counsel in accordance with established
executive branch consultation practices and, hence, we are
providing the following additional information regarding
the fourth and fifth items of your request: The following
White House employees requested reimbursement of counsel
fees in connection with congressional or Independent
Counsel investigations about the White House Travel Office
or Whitewater: Mary Beck, Lisa Caputo, Nelson Cunningham,
Jonathan Denbo, Nell Doering, Charles Easley, Dwight
Holden, Carolyn Huber, Ed Hughes, Bruce Lindsay, Kelli
McClure, Thomas McLarty, Douglas Matties, DeeDee Myers,
Beth Nolan, Bruce Overton, John Podesta, Ashley Raines,
Ricki Seidman, Clifford Sloan, George Stephanopoulos,
Kathleen Whalen, Jonathan Yarowsky. The requests of Beck,
Holden, Podesta, and Yarowsky have been approved. The
remainder are pending, but we are continuing to process
requests and anticipate acting on some of them in the near
future.
With regard to the fifth item of your request, the
Department of Justice has paid no fees to date in connection
with these matters. The Department has agreed to pay private
counsel fees as indicated in our September 5th memorandum to
Committee staff in accordance with the enclosed sample
retention agreement.
I hope that this information is helpful. Please do not
hesitate to contact me if we can provide additional
assistance regarding this or any other matter.
Sincerely,
Andrew Fois,
Assistant Attorney General.
____

U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Legislative Affairs,

Washington, DC, September 5, 1996.
To: Lisa Kaufman, Senior Investigative Counsel, Senate
Judiciary Committee; Karen Robb, Minority Staff Director,
Senate Judiciary Committee.
From: Faith Burton, Special Counsel, Office of Legislative
Affairs.
Re: Chairman Hatch's Letter of August 21, 1996.
This is to provide information on an expedited basis in
response to Lisa's request in connection with Chairman
Hatch's August 21, 1996, letter regarding requests for
government reimbursement of private counsel. This
information, and three enclosed documents, respond to the
third and fourth items of the letter.
The following FBI employees have requested representation
with regard to congressional inquiries regarding the White
House Travel Office matter: James Bourke, David Bowie, John
Collingwood, Patrick Foran, Richard Hildreth, Barbara King,
Peggy Larson, Sharon MacGargle, Patrick Maloy, Larry Potts,
Thomas Renaghan, Therese Rodrique, Gregory Schwarz, Dennis
Sculimbrene, Cecilia Woods. The requests of Bourke, Bowie,
Collingwood, Foran, Larson, MacGargle, Potts, Renaghan,
Schwarz, Sculimbrene, and Woods have been approved. The
remaining requests have been held in abeyance because we have
been advised that no congressional depositions are
anticipated at this time.
In addition, Sherry Carner and Janice George initially
requested reimbursement for private counsel fees; however,
the House Committee ultimately allowed them to be accompanied
by FBI counsel, so their requests were withdrawn.
Please contact me at 514-1653 if you have any questions
about this information. We are working on a more complete
response to the Chairman's letter and will get it to you as
soon as possible.
____

Conditions of Private Counsel Retention by the Department of Justice
for Representation of Current and Former Federal Employees

The following items and conditions shall apply to the
retention of a private attorney's legal services by the
Department of Justice to represent current and former federal
employees in civil, congressional, or criminal proceedings.

nature of retention

Subject to the availability of funds, the Department of
Justice agrees to pay an attorney, or other members of his or
her firm, for those legal services reasonably necessitated by
the defense of a current or former federal employee
(hereinafter ``client'') in civil, congressional, or criminal
proceedings.
The Department will not honor bills for services that the
Department determines were not directly related to the
defense of issues presented by such matters. Examples of
services for which the Department will not pay include, but
are not limited to:
a. administrative claims, civil actions, or any
indemnification proceedings against the United States on
behalf of the client for any adverse monetary judgment,
whether before or after the entry of such an adverse
judgment;
b. cross claims against do-defendants or counterclaims
against plaintiff, unless the Department of Justice
determines in advance of its filing that a counterclaim is
essential to the defense of the employee and the employee
agrees that any recovery on the counterclaim will be paid to
the United States as a reimbursement for the costs of the
defense of the employee;
c. requests made under the Freedom of Information or
Privacy Acts or civil suits against the United States under
the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts, or on any other
basis, to secure documents for use in the defense of the
client;
d. any legal work that advances only the individual
interests of the employee; and
e. certain administrative expenses noted in paragraph
number 4 below.
The retained attorney is free to undertake such actions as
set for the above, but must negotiate any charges with the
client and may not pass those charges on to the Department of
Justice.
The above list is not exhaustive. The Department of Justice
will not reimburse services deemed reasonably necessary to
the defense of an employee if they are not in the interests
of the United States.
To avoid confusion over whether the retained attorney may
bill the Department for a particular service under this
retention agreement, the retained attorney should consult the
Justice Department attorney assigned to the case, mentioned
in the accompanying letter before undertaking the service.

billable hours

The Department of Justice agrees to pay the retained
attorney for any amount of time not exceeding 120 billable
hours per month for services performed in the defense of the
client. The retained attorney may use the services of any
number of attorneys, paralegals, or legal assistants in his
or her firm so long as the aggregate number of billable hours
in any given month does not exceed 120 hours. The client is
free, however, to retain the attorney, or members of the
firm, to perform work in excess of 120 hours per month so
long as the firm does not bill the excess charge to the
Department of Justice.
The Department will consider paying for services in excess
of 120 hours in any given month if the press of litigation
(e.g., trial preparation) clearly necessitates the
expenditure of more time. The retained attorney must make
requests for additional compensation to the Department in
writing in advance of such expenditures.

legal fees

The Department agrees to pay the retained attorney up to
$99.00 per lawyer hour, plus expenses as described in
paragraph 4 below. The charge for any services should not
exceed the retained attorney's ordinary and customary charge
for such services. This fee is based on the consideration
that the retained attorney has been practicing law in excess
of 5 years.
In the event the retained attorney uses the services of
other lawyers in his or her firm, or the services of a
paralegal or legal assistant, the Department agrees to pay
the following fees.
a. Lawyer with more than 5 years practicing experience:
$99.00 per lawyer hour
b. Lawyer with 3--5 years of practicing experience: $79.00
per lawyer hour
c. Lawyer with 0--3 years of practicing experience: $66.00
per lawyer hour
d. Paralegal or legal assistant: $39.00 per hour.
The Department of Justice periodically reviews the hourly
rates paid to attorneys retained to defend federal employees
under 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.16. If, during the period of this
agreement, the Department revises the

[[Page S10309]]

schedule of hourly rates payable in such cases, the
Department will pay revised rates for services rendered after
the effective date of the revision in rates.

Expenses

While the Department will pay normal overhead expenses
actually incurred (e.g., postage, telephone tolls, travel,
transcripts), the retained attorney must itemize these
charges. The Department will not accept for payment a bill
that shows only a standard fee or percentage as ``overhead''.
The retained attorney must describe, justify, and clear IN
ADVANCE unusual or exceptionally high expenses.
In addition, the retained attorney must describe, justify,
and clear in advance any consultations with or retention of
experts or expert witnesses.
The retained attorney must secure advance approval to use
computer-assisted research that involves charges in excess of
$250.00 in a given month.
The retained attorney must separately justify and obtain
advance approval for services such as printing, graphic
reproduction, or preparation of demonstrative evidence or
explanatory exhibits.
The retained attorney must itemize and justify in-house
copying costs exceeding $125.00 in a given month. The
Department will pay the per page copying cost at the
government rate set forth at 28 C.F.R. Sec. 16.10(2).
The retained attorney must itemize and justify facsimile
transmission costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month.
The Department will pay expenses such as secretarial
overtime or the purchase of books only in exceptional
situations. The retained attorney must obtain advance
approval for such expenditures.
Travel expenses may not include first class service or
deluxe accommodations. The retained attorney may not bill
time spent in travel unless it is used to accomplish tasks
related to the litigation. The retained attorney must
specifically identify such tasks.
The Department will not pay for meal charges not related to
out-of-town travel.
The Department will not provide compensation for client or
other entertainment.
The Department will not pay expenses for meals incidental
to overtime.
The Department will not pay for expenses that can normally
be absorbed as clerical overhead, such as time spent in
preparing legal bills and filing papers with the Court. The
retained attorney must separately list and justify messenger
services.
The retained attorney must enumerate the expenses incurred
for hiring local counsel by rate, hour, and kind of service.
These hours must fall within the 120-hour monthly maximum.
The hourly rates paid to local counsel may not exceed the
rates listed in paragraph 3 above.

format of bills

The retained attorney must submit bills on a monthly basis,
stating the date of each service performed; the name of the
attorney or legal assistant performing the service; a
description of the service; and the time in tenths, sixths,
or quarters of an hour, required to perform the service.
Because of the limitation on reimbursable hours, a bill must
include all services rendered in a given month. The
Department will not consider subsequent bills for services
rendered in a month for which it has already received a bill.
In describing the nature of the service performed, the
itemization must reflect each litigation activity for which
reimbursement is claimed.
The retained attorney must attach copies of airline
tickets, hotel bills, and bills for deposition and hearing
transcripts to the billing statement.
The retained attorney must itemize local mileage costs
(e.g., purpose of travel and number of miles). The Department
will pay the standard government cost per mile rate for the
use of privately owned vehicles.
Before the Department of Justice will pay a bill,
Department attorneys with substantive knowledge of the
litigation will review it. If the retained attorney believes
that the detail of the legal bill would compromise litigation
tactics if disclosed to Department attorneys assigned to the
case, the retained attorney should list those particular
billing items on a separate sheet of paper with an indication
of the specific concern. Department attorneys uninvolved with
this case will independently review the separated, sensitive
portion of the bill solely to determine if payment is
appropriate under applicable standards.
The individuals reviewing the bills will not discuss these
items with the Department of Justice attorneys having
responsibility for the case, nor will those responsible
attorneys review the items in question.
After Department attorneys complete the review of a bill,
the Department will notify the billing counsel if the
Department deems any item or items nonreimbursable or if any
item or items require further explanation. When further
information or explanation is needed, the Department will
hold the entire bill until the retained attorney responds.
Only after the Department receives and reviews the response
will the Department certify the bill in whole or in part for
payment. For that reason, the retained attorney must respond
promptly.
Should the Department determine that any items are not
reimbursable under this agreement, the billing counsel may
request further review of the Department's determination. The
retained attorney shall make such a written request to the
appropriate Branch director at the address indicated in the
forwarding letter. The billing counsel must submit such
requests for further review within 30 days, unless additional
time is specifically requested and approved. Thereafter, the
Department will not reconsider its determination.

billing address

The retained attorney should submit all bills to:
Director, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
D.C. 20530, Attn: Room 7038 Todd Building.

prompt payment

The Prompt Payment Act is applicable to payments under this
agreement and requires the payment of interest on overdue
payments. Determinations of interest due will be made in
accordance with provisions of the Prompt Payment Act and
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-125.

GAO REVIEW

Periodically, the Department of Justice may ask the
retained attorney to submit copies of the time sheets to the
General Accounting Office (GAO) for purposes of auditing the
accuracy of corresponding monthly bills, copies of which the
Department will forward directly to GAO.

TERMINATION

The Department of Justice reserves the right to terminate
its retention agreement with the retained attorney at any
time for reasons set forth in 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.16.

ACCEPTANCE

I agree that my retention by the Department of Justice to
represent John Yarowsky in connection with the House
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight's Investigation
of the White House Travel Office matter will be in accordance
with the applicable statutes, regulations, and the foregoing
terms and conditions. This written instrument, together with
the applicable statutes and regulations, represents the
entire agreement between the Department of Justice and the
undersigned, any past or future oral agreements
notwithstanding.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, here we have the Clinton administration
quietly approving reimbursement of legal expenses for its people at a
time when President Clinton opposes giving Mr. Dale a ``special
preference.'' That was said by the President in his Rose Garden
conference of August 1, 1996. It was hypocritically said by the
President under these circumstances.
The reimbursement of the legal fees of Billy Dale, and other hard-
working, honest civil servants wrongly fired from the White House
Travel Office, will right the wrong of an overreaching executive
branch. You would think they would want to get this mess behind them.
But, no. They come here and besmirch representatives of the other side.
These people have been through hell enough. It is unseemly.
This provision is also an attempt, I might add, to make the Travel
Office Seven whole at least financially by providing for their
attorney's fees. My colleagues on the other side are willing to let the
others get reimbursed their attorney's fees because they do not amount
to much. They are also, I am sure, in support of reimbursing the 23
White House employees their attorney's fees, but not Mr. Dale.
I believe reimbursing Mr. Dale and all of the Travel Office employees
is the least we can do after all that they have been through.
I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not to hold up
this measure any longer--no more excuses, no more delays. Let us get
this legislation passed today and put an end to it once and for all.
I appreciate the Clinton administration's desire to cover the legal
fees of those who have been loyal to the President, and I want to point
out that a mechanism exists for the Department of Justice to consider
doing so, too. That is OK. Mr. Dale is not so fortunate. He also was
loyal to a number of Presidents, including this one. But his reward is
to be put through an unseemly, vicious, miserable, costly criminal
indictment and trial.
To indict somebody, all you have to show is reasonable suspicion. To
convict them, you have to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And
that is where the White House, the Justice Department, and the
prosecutors failed. And they rightly failed, because Mr. Dale was not
guilty.
As I noted, the Clinton White House staff is certainly availing
themselves of the current avenues for reimbursement. But for the
Clinton administration to oppose the reimbursement of Mr. Dale's legal
fees at the same time White House staff are seeking reimbursement
through the Department of

[[Page S10310]]

Justice is transparent. It is inconsistent, to say the least. And I
might add it is hypocritical. It is hypocritical. And it is amazing to
me that the people at the White House don't have the guts to admit it
and just say, ``Let us do what is right here.''
To me there isn't any question. They can't show any wrongdoing by
Billy Dale. To try to besmirch him on the Senate floor in a double-
jeopardy type of situation by bringing up what you think is one side of
the case facts after a jury of his peers acquitted him, I have to tell
you, it is unseemly. Moreover, anybody would consider a guilty plea to
something that does not amount to very much if they could get a load of
hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional legal fees off their
backs. Anybody would do that. To suggest otherwise is just not right.
Time after time, I have seen defendants consider plea agreements in
unjust prosecutions, and this was one of them.
This provision provides for payment of the legal expenses incurred by
Billy Dale, Barney Brasseaux, John Dreylinger, Ralph Maughan, John
McSweeney, and Gary Wright incurred after being terminated in May 1993,
amid false allegations made by President Clinton's political cronies.
Although 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 provision would provide
the balance.
This provision 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 attorneys' fees and costs that resulted from
these seven men defending themselves against criminal charges.
The Travel Office employees will have 120 days after this legislation
is enacted to submit verification of valid legal expenses.
Reimbursement is limited up to $500,000, and does not include fees
associated with appearances before or in preparation of congressional
investigations or hearings.
After the former Travel Office employees were fired due to charges of
financial irregularities by political profiteers, they were
investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of
Justice, and the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. Dale was subsequently
indicted and tried as a result of the investigation and after incurring
a tremendous legal debt for his defense, Mr. Dale was acquitted on all
charges. The other Travel Office employees also incurred legal expenses
for their own defenses.
None of these former Travel Office employees held high-level
positions in the administration. Many of them had worked for both
Democratic and Republican Presidents. Were it not for their positions
as employees of the Federal Government, and because they found
themselves in the unfortunate position of having jobs coveted by
friends of the Clintons, they would not have been subject to a Federal
criminal investigation.
The legal fees placed on these middle-class public servants have been
astronomical. The monetary damage they sustained is quantifiable. This
provision will not cover the emotional damage of this abuse of power by
the Clinton administration. Nor will it return to these faithful
Government employees their reputations or faith in the Government they
had served. It merely covers the attorneys' fees and costs associated
with the criminal investigation.
According to Attorney General Reno, the White House has the authority
to seek representation from the Department of Justice for Government
employees who have been called to testify regarding matters within the
scope of their employment. Customarily, representation of these
employees is handled by attorneys for the agency for which the employee
works. There are instances however, in which it would be inappropriate
for agency attorneys to represent employees of the agency. In these
cases, the Department of Justice has authority to provide reimbursement
for the fees associated with retaining private counsel. With respect to
the Travel Office and FBI files and Whitewater investigations, 23 White
House employees have requested reimbursement for the legal fees of
their private attorneys.
Should a White House employee want to receive reimbursement for their
legal fees for their cooperation in providing testimony, there is a
relatively simple procedure they must follow. First, all bills for
legal fees for private counsel must be submitted to the White House
Counsel's Office. This information is then forwarded to the Civil
Division of the Justice Department with a written recommendation as to
the merit of the request. The Department will then, either approve or
deny the request consistent with their own guidelines. That is the
extent of it.
As I stated previously, 23 White House employees have requested
Federal reimbursement of counsel fees in connection with congressional
or independent counsel investigations into the White House Travel
Office or Whitewater. A number of these requests have been approved by
the Clinton Justice Department, and the Department has said: ``we are
continuing to process requests and anticipate acting on some of them in
the near future.''
Today, I am not addressing whether the reimbursement of legal fees
for individuals appearing before Congress is appropriate or not. In
fact, if the law permits it, I have no objection to employees of the
White House seeking reimbursement. My point in raising the issue at all
is to expose the hypocrisy of the Clinton administration. The Clinton
White House victimized Billy Dale and his colleagues which lead to the
political prosecution of Mr. Dale leaving him with $500,000 in legal
fees. Even the White House has admitted it improperly handled the White
House Travel Office matter. In fact, a document produced to the Senate
Judiciary Committee from the White House, which appears to be talking
points for a meeting with the House Democratic Caucus, states the
following, ``You all may dimly remember the Travel Office affair: in
which a number of White House staff--many immature and self-promoting--
took impulsive and foolhardy actions to root out problems at the
beginning of the Clinton administration and to then gallantly recommend
that they take over its operation.'' Now, the White House has the
chutspah to authorize the payment of fees to its people and not to
Billy Dale. I find this astonishing.
In a press conference on November 16, 1995, months after the Travel
Office employees had been fired, President Clinton told the American
public that he regretted the hardship that Mr. Dale and his colleagues
had endured because of their abrupt firings. He also said that it
appeared the White House did not handle the Travel Office dismissals
appropriately. This was, in my opinion, a genuine attempt by the
President to take responsibility for what happened to these loyal
Government employees.
Then on January 30, 1996, White House spokesman Mr. McCurry stated,
``Yes, and he would sign it'', referring to Mr. Clinton's intent to
sign this measure. Again, just prior to the recent press conference in
the Rose Garden on August 1, 1996, White House Press Secretary, Mr.
Toiv, reaffirmed that President Clinton would sign legislation to
reimburse the former Travel Office employees. He stated, and I quote,
``I would just repeat that when the bill arrives on the President's
desk, he would sign it.''
Despite the administration's previous position, the President said at
the August 1, 1996, press conference in response to a question
regarding whether he would keep his word and sign this bill, ``I
didn't--I never gave my word on that''. He then stated that an error
had been made by his spokesman, ``I have made it clear to Mr. McCurry
what my position is on this. And if an error was made by my spokesman,
I'm sorry, but I have not broken my word to anybody.''
After President Clinton's apparent U-turn on this issue, in an
interview with CNN on August 26, 1996, President Clinton took the
extraordinary step to state that individuals serving in his
administration have been ruined by pure, naked, raw politics''. He then
went on to say that he would pursue every avenue, including raising
money himself, to pay for the legal expenses of his

[[Page S10311]]

aides. He then continued to say in reference to his aides, ``Do I feel
terrible about the completely innocent middle-class people who have
been wrecked financially by this? I certainly do. But I didn't abuse
them. And it's high time that the people who abuse have to take
responsibility for what they do''.
I must admit that I am disappointed and shocked by the steps that
this administration has taken to smear the Travel Office employees. The
President's recent comments are in direct contradiction to his previous
statements expressing concern for the former Travel Office employees.
He is willing to assist his aides, and criticize the Congress for
pursuing an investigation into wrongdoing by his administration, but
will not accept responsibility for the wrongful treatment of Billy
Dale? Give me a break.
In the embarrassment of having lost a case so blatantly politically
motivated, individuals within the Department of Justice chose to leak a
document revealing that Mr. Dale considered accepting a plea bargain.
Notably, as the Justice Department is fully aware, and is articulated
in their own regulations, information regarding plea negotiations is
confidential, not for public dissemination. I can only sympathize with
Mr. Dale, who after years of constant invasion of his and his family's
privacy, and incurring enormous expenses, considered a settlement in
the hopes of ending this nightmare. Some of my colleagues have
suggested that Mr. Dale admitted his culpability by considering a plea
agreement. So too, has President Clinton, a former State attorney
general and law professor. Now, we have a ``Dear Colleague'' letter
distributed yesterday which also disseminates this confidential
information. The facts are, however, that Mr. Dale never agreed to
admit to committing the essential elements necessary for an
embezzlement prosecution. He simply agreed to settle the case without
an admission of guilt. Any suggestion that such a strategic tactic
equates to an admission of guilt is outrageous and is yet just a
further attempt to smear Mr. Dale's reputation.

Department of Justice guidelines specifically state that information
which ``tends to create dangers of prejudice without serving a
significant law enforcement function,'' should not be released to the
public. The disclosure of a plea agreement clearly fits within this
definition. It is troubling to me that the Department of Justice, The
President, and some of my colleagues in the Senate continue to ignore
this.
Whitewater is the investigation of the possibility of the Clintons
using their political positions for personal gain in a virtually risk-
free investment, and then, engaging in damage control activities. There
has been no credible allegation that the Government somehow abused the
Whitewater participants. By contrast, the Travelgate investigation is a
case of sheer and utter abuse by the executive branch. By politicizing
the Department of Justice and the FBI, the administration literally
ruined the livelihood and reputation of seven hard-working civil
servants.
I believe a distinction should be made between reimbursement of fees
for appearances before Congress and those involving the misuse of the
judicial system for purely political purposes. This provision does not
allow payment of legal fees in connection with any appearance before
Congress. Accordingly, within the parameters of the provision,
Whitewater witnesses could not be reimbursed. Appearing before Congress
simply would not be covered by this provision.
Unlike Travelgate, however, the Whitewater matter has not been
completed. Many questions have been left unanswered in the Whitewater
investigation and an Independent Counsel is still trying to determine
whether or not there have been any criminal violations. Any
perpetrators of a coverup must be brought to justice. Let us not forget
it was just this past January when Rose law firm billing records
mysteriously surfaced within the residence of the White House.
Individuals with access to this area of the White House must be
questioned to find the truth. The American people deserve no less.
Unlike the witnesses in the Whitewater hearings, these former
employees of the White House Travel Office were targeted by the Office
of the President. They were victims of an administration that
politicized the Department of Justice and the FBI. In contrast, the
Whitewater witnesses have not been subjected to such persecution, and
were questioned in the hope of shedding light on the details of the
Clinton's investment. These witnesses certainly had information
pertinent to the investigation, but they were not the target of the
investigation. The individuals in the Travel Office matter were
victimized not because they happened to come into contact with an
investigation as many ordinary citizens could and is clearly the case
with the Whitewater witnesses, but because they held positions in the
Government that allowed them to become the subject of an investigative
probe. I think this provision affirms that it is appropriate to
compensate these people who have been put to such expense under these
special circumstances.
Moreover, the victims in the Travelgate matter are clear and
identifiable. Mr. Dale and the six other former employees of the White
House Travel Office had their reputations marred by the Clinton
administration. They endured investigations by the FBI, the IRS, the
Department of Justice, as well as that of Peat Marwick. Their families
were placed under the strain of having been investigated for 2\1/2\
years, all without a single proven instance of wrong-doing on the part
of the Travel Office employees.
Mr. President, those on the other side have indicated that this bill
which reimburses Billy Dale is unprecedented. I would like to point out
that the House passed this bill with overwhelming bipartisan support,
and, despite the bipartisan support of the House, some of my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber oppose this provision
stating it sets a bad precedent.
Let me just quickly quote Congressman Barney Frank, a well-respected
Democrat, a memorandum of the Judiciary Committee over there, a person
with whom I work on the Judiciary Committee in the Senate as well about
this very issue. He said, ``This neither sets a precedent nor precludes
someone. Any new case will be judged on the same merits.''
I agree with Congressman Frank. After all, Congress is not bound by
the actions of another Congress.
I might also add that in the Transportation appropriations bill for
fiscal year 1995, five of the Travel Office Seven had some of their
legal expenses reimbursed. Since receiving reimbursement for their
legal expenses at that time, these individuals have incurred more legal
debt. Not included in the fiscal year 1995 Transportation
appropriations bill were the legal expenses of Billy Dale. The
provisions of this bill allow reimbursement for these additional fees,
and for Mr. Dale.
When the Transportation appropriations bill was passed, no one made a
fuss. These individuals were reimbursed, as they deserved to be. Billy
Dale deserves the same treatment. After all, he was sacked just like
all the others, sacked unjustly.
I have heard arguments that if we are to reimburse Billy Dale even
after being indicted, the floodgates would be opened, and we would be
obligated to reimburse anyone who was investigated by the Federal
Government and found innocent of all charges.
I do not believe that is the case, nor do I believe that this White
House or any White House in the future is going to do the outrageous
smearing that occurred in this case. This is a unique case that
involved the executive branch at the highest level doing this to
decent, honorable, honest people who have been vindicated by the courts
of law.
As we are all aware, Congress can decide the merits of all claims on
a case-by-case basis. By passing this provision, we are not setting a
precedent as is done in a court of law. We are simply passing a
judgment based on the circumstances of this case that the firing of the
Travel Office Seven was unjust and the manner by which they were
investigated was inappropriate and unwarranted.
The Administration erred in the way they dealt with the Travel Office
situation. By reimbursing the legal expenses of Billy Dale and his
colleagues, Congress would be taking a step to correct the
administration's error in judgment.

[[Page S10312]]

Now, reimbursing legal expenses is not wholly unprecedented, I might
add. Although the circumstances are somewhat different, Hamilton Jordan
is an example of someone who, in my opinion, was unfairly investigated
after being accused of cocaine use. After an independent counsel was
appointed and all the evidence gathered, Mr. Jordan was cleared of all
charges. Congress then decided to reimburse Mr. Jordan's legal fees
because the charges lodged against him were found to be baseless.
Because unjust situations sometimes arise, the independent counsel
statutes have provisions designed to rectify these grievances. Why
can't my colleagues treat this matter as decently as those of us who
were then in the Senate treated Hamilton Jordan? Why is it we have to
go through this? Would it not be in the best interests of the President
to put this behind us?
The White House was able to bring the power of Federal law
enforcement to bear on the Travel Office employees, and the facts show
that they did it improperly for purposes of greed.
In response to the claim that such a payment is unprecedented, I say
that the circumstances by which Billy Dale and the others were fired is
unprecedented, and it should be treated as such. We are not talking
about some low-level bureaucrat in the halls of the bureaucracies of
this city. We are talking about right in the halls of the upper levels
of the White House itself where this injustice was perpetrated. The
circumstances by which Mr. Billy Dale and the others were prosecuted
and were investigated and charged and targeted, and prosecuted in
Dale's case, were unprecedented.
This is a meritorious case for reimbursement. It is as meritorious as
any I have ever seen. What was done to these people never should have
occurred in this manner. House Republicans and House Democrats
recognize this fact. There was not an attempt to indict him all over,
convict him again after a jury acquitted him, or go through the facts
in a further attempt to smear Mr. Dale. The fact is, the media knew he
was honest, and everybody else knew he was honest, and, above all, a
jury of his peers found him to be honest. What was done to these people
should not have been done.
We had bipartisan passage in the House--we ought to have that here. I
think everyone in this body recognizes that fact. If we in Congress are
to reimburse legal fees on a case-by-case basis when the case merits
it, as this one does, then it is the right thing to do, and I have
never, never seen a case more worthy than this one that could come
before the Senate. I can tell some other injustices that were certainly
terrible that should be straightened out, too, but nothing like this.

It has also been suggested by my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle that H.R. 2937 is a private relief bill, and typically these
bills are referred to the Court of Claims for factfinding. First, I
would like to point out that H.R. 2937 is not a private relief bill.
This bill was passed through the House on the Suspension Calendar,
which handles public bills. There is a separate calendar that deals
with private relief bills. The Congressional Record reflects the fact
that H.R. 2937 was on a public bill calendar, and there was a rollcall
vote when it finally passed earlier this year.
Second, a private relief bill must name all those making a claim.
H.R. 2937 does not name the former Travel Office employees
specifically. Even if H.R. 2937 was a private relief bill, however,
congressional referrals are typically made to the Court of Claims only
if the facts of the claim are complicated and unclear.
In this case, numerous reports as well as 2 years' worth of
investigations and House hearings have exposed the facts in this case.
The facts are very clear, and there is very little dispute to what
occurred. Additionally, the only other reason to refer the matter to
the Claims Court would be if there was a dispute as to the amount of
money that is being claimed.
Once again, Mr. Dale and his former colleagues submitted their bills
to the House Judiciary Committee, and those amounts were included in
the House bill. There is no dispute about the bills that have been
submitted. In short, there is no reason why my colleagues should want
to remove this language from the Treasury-Postal bill on the basis that
the facts are unclear. We in this body and the administration know what
the facts are and we know where the blame lies.
Mr. President, I hope our colleagues will vote to support the Hatch
amendment and will vote to turn down this attempt to throw this matter
into the Court of Claims. There is nothing in dispute here. I think
everybody who is fair will acknowledge that.
Might I ask, how much of my time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 20 minutes and 35 seconds
remaining.
Mr. HATCH. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Amendment No. 5257, as Modified

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if I could, pursuant to the UC, I send a
modified amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
The amendment (No. 5257), as modified, is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. . (a) Reimbursement of Certain Attorney Fees and
Costs.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay
from amounts appropriated in title I of this Act under the
heading, ``Departmental Offices, Salaries and Expenses'', up
to $499,999 to reimburse former employees of the White House
Travel office whose employment in that office was terminated
on May 19, 1993, for any attorney fees and costs they
incurred with respect to that termination.
(2) Verification required.--The Secretary shall pay an
individual in full under paragraph (1) upon submission by the
individual of documentation verifying the attorney fees and
costs.
(3) No inference of liability.--Liability of the United
States shall not be inferred from enactment of or payment
under this subsection.
(b) Limitation on Filing of Claims.--The Secretary of the
Treasury shall not pay any claim filed under this section
that is filed later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(c) Limitation.--Payments under subsection (a) shall not
include attorney fees or costs incurred with respect to any
Congressional hearing or investigation into the termination
of employment of the former employees of the White House
Travel Office.
(d) Reduction.--The amount paid pursuant to this section to
an individual for attorney fees and costs described in
subsection (a) shall be reduced by any amount received before
the date of the enactment of this Act, without obligation for
repayment by the individual, for payment of such attorney
fees and costs (including any amount received from the funds
appropriated for the individual in the matter relating to the
``Office of the General Counsel'' under the heading ``Office
of the Secretary'' in title I of the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
1994).
(c) Payment in Full Settlement of Claims Against the United
States.--Payment under this section, when accepted by an
individual described in subsection (a), shall be in full
satisfaction of all claims of, or on behalf of, the
individual against the United States that arose out of the
termination of the White House Travel Office employment of
that individual on May 19, 1993.
Sec. 529. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Executive Office of the President to request
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation any official
background investigation report on any individual, except
when it is made known to the Federal official having
authority to obligate or expend such funds that----
(1) such individual has given his or her express written
consent for such request not more than 6 months prior to the
date of such request and during the same presidential
administration; or
(2) such request is required due to extraordinary
circumstances involving national security.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority manager of the bill is
recognized.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the subcommittee has included the $500,000
for the reimbursement of the Travel Office employees terminated by the
White House in May 1993. And why? I want to explain that briefly.
Over 3 years later, we are attempting to offset the cost of the
tremendous legal fees that these individuals, I believe, were
wrongfully forced to assume. The provision here would pay the
attorney's fees and costs they incurred with respect to that
termination.
Why do we need this legislation? In October 1993, as part of the
fiscal year 1994 transportation appropriations bill, the Congress
authorized the payment of $150,000 for the legal bills of the five
White House Travel Office employees who, after being summarily fired,
were placed on administrative leave and

[[Page S10313]]

later transferred to other Federal agencies. This sum, $150,000, was
insufficient to completely cover the legal costs of the five employees
and did not address the attorney's fees of the other two fired Travel
Office employees because they were still under investigation. Both
employees have since been exonerated of any wrongdoing, and I believe
they deserve similar reimbursement for the extraordinary and
unnecessary legal expenses they were required to incur. Mr. Dale's
attorneys' costs alone are close to half a million dollars.
This is a unique case, to say the least. Each claim against the
United States should be judged on a case-by-case basis, and it is not
the intent of this provision in this bill to set a precedent that in
every case the payment of attorney's fees and costs is justified.
What is the justification of the attorney's fees here? I believe the
firing of the White House employees, and especially Mr. Dale, was one
of the most appalling abuses of power that I have ever seen, because I
think it shows what little regard the White House has had for the
plight of these loyal, dedicated public servants and their families.
And it was totally unnecessary, which makes it even worse. The White
House could have fired the Travel Office without as much as a whimper.
And yet, the White House felt compelled to devise a strategy that would
blunt the claims of nepotism and political motivation that would
certainly follow replacing a nonpartisan, career Travel office with
Little Rock business associates, friends and relatives.
Now, after several years of investigation that has sometimes raised
issues of constitutional dimension--claims of executive privilege,
contempt citations--the facts make clear that:
No. 1, a concerted effort was undertaken in the White House and by
close friends and associates of the President and First Lady to take
over the Travel Office.
No. 2, it was not sufficient to simply fire the career civil servants
serving in the Office, which it was the prerogative of the White House
to do. Instead, White House staff colluded to raise false claims of
criminal wrongdoing against the Travel Office staff to justify what was
purely a political move to benefit friends and associates of the
President and First Lady.
No. 3, the White House improperly used the FBI to initiate a criminal
investigation against the White House Travel staff based solely on the
allegations of the President's cousin, Catherine Cornelius, who
admittedly intended to run the White House Travel Office once the
career employees were ousted.
No. 4, the White House publicly made allegations of criminal
wrongdoing and financial mismanagement before an accounting audit was
ever completed on the Travel Office.
No. 5, the seven long-time career employees were never given an
opportunity to respond to the allegations or answer the accusations
made against them--they were given minutes notice of their termination,
and almost immediately escorted off the White House premises by, none
other than Craig Livingstone, the head of White House Personnel
Security.
No. 6, the GAO found in its May 1994 report that while senior White
House officials said the terminations were based on ``findings of
serious financial management weaknesses, we noted that individuals who
had personal and business interests in the Travel Office created the
momentum and ultimately led to the examination of the Travel Office
operations.''
No. 7, the GAO also agreed with the White House's own Management
Review of the Travel Office affair 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.''
I am saddened to see that the President went back on his commitment
to support reimbursing the Travel Office employees. In January of this
year, Mike McCurry, the President's spokesman and Press Secretary made
it clear that the President was not only sorry for the treatment of Mr.
Dale and his colleagues, but that he would sign a bill to reimburse
them for their legal costs.
It appears now that the President intends to make a political
statement out of their misfortune. Upset with congressional
investigations into Whitewater and the Travelgate matter itself, he now
intends to hold these long-time career employees hostage to his
political posturing.
It was not enough that they were used as an excuse to give his
friends and relatives Government jobs.
It was not enough that these employees were accused of criminal
conduct without a shred of evidence, other than the allegations of a
24-year-old relative.
It was not enough that these employees were subject to IRS audits,
that their FBI files were improperly requested as late as seven months
after they were fired. Recall that it was Craig Livingstone who
escorted the Travel Office employees out of the White House in May of
1993. We are now supposed to believe that he was not aware that Billy
Dale was not working in the White House when his own office requested
Mr. Dale's FBI file 7 months later in December of that year?
It was not enough that Mr. Dale was acquitted after only 2 hours of
deliberation by the jury. Two hours. The man was acquitted. And what
was the White House response? What was the President's personal lawyer
doing on all the morning talk shows? He accused Mr. Dale of accepting a
plea bargain. Talk about insult to injury.
This decent, loyal employee is set-up by the White House, and then
when he is acquitted in a court of law by a jury of his peers, the
President's personal attorney gets on national television and implies
that Mr. Dale is a criminal that tried to get off easy.
Why is the White House so intent on destroying Billy Dale?
The White House has every reason to be embarrassed by their actions,
every reason to want to avoid talking about Billy Dale--but it is an
absolute outrage, that the President of the United States would seek to
use this man as a foil for his own political gain. It is wrong. It is
unjust. It is unkind, uncharitable, and indecent.
The Senators' amendment, Senators Reid and Levin, is, therefore,
misplaced and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding the minority leader
wishes to speak at this time. I suggest the absence of a quorum and
indicate the time not run that is left for the Senator from Utah and
the Senators from Michigan and Nevada. He should be here momentarily.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am dumbfounded that we are tonight
debating whether or not we should, for the first time in history, pay
the attorney's fees for an individual who was properly indicted and
properly prosecuted. Is the U.S. Congress going to start reimbursing
every Federal defendant who is acquitted? If the answer is no, then I
must question why are we being asked to do so in this case. There is no
argument about reimbursing fees for those who are not indicted. The
only argument is about paying the fees for one individual who was,
again, properly indicted and properly prosecuted.
Unfortunately, instead of addressing the issues the American people
are really concerned about--job security, personal security, retirement
security--some of our Republican colleagues have decided to raise this
issue in a blatant attempt to score political points in a Presidential
election year. They are willing to spend $500,000 of taxpayer dollars
in an attempt to embarrass the White House. In this era of tight
budgets and competing priorities, we cannot afford to waste that kind
of money to pay for Republican attack ads from the Senate floor. There
is absolutely no precedent for this legislation to pay Billy Dale's
legal expenses.

[[Page S10314]]

We have never agreed to pay the legal expenses for anyone who is
indicted. The Independent Counsel Act provides for the reimbursement of
legal expenses for a person who is not indicted. Billy Dale, however,
was indicted and was prosecuted by the Justice Department, not the
independent counsel. Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence that
Billy Dale was indicted unfairly. Mr. Dale never filed any motions or
raised any legal objections to his indictment, and I am unaware of any
finding by any court that the indictment was somehow improper or
motivated by political purpose. Nor have we held any hearings on the
matter. There is no factual basis for violating the Senate precedent
and giving half a million dollars to Billy Dale or anyone else.
There are also undisputed facts about this matter that I find
somewhat disturbing.
We know that Mr. Dale deposited over 50 Travel Office checks worth
approximately $54,000 into his personal account over a 3-year period of
time. He never told anyone in the Travel Office or in the Bush or
Clinton White Houses about these secret deposits. These deposits only
came to light because of a FBI investigation, not because Mr. Dale
disclosed this information.
We know that Mr. Dale offered to plead guilty to a felony before the
trial. That is fact.
We know that Mr. Dale admitted that it was ``a terrible decision on
my part.''
We know that at the end of the trial, the judge ruled that there was
sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to convict Dale of all
charges brought against him.
In the end, the jury acquitted Mr. Dale of the charges, but that does
not mean the taxpayers should pay his legal expenses. If we gave a half
a million dollars to every defendant who was acquitted, I am sure we
would have people lining up for criminal trials in every courthouse in
America. The fact is, we have never reimbursed anyone who was indicted,
even if they were later acquitted by a jury.
So why do my Republican colleagues seek special treatment for Mr.
Dale? Why should Mr. Dale be treated differently than every other
criminal defendant in America?
It seems to me that he is being treated differently because my
Republican colleagues are using the Travel Office matter for purely
political purposes. Of course, my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle say that Mr. Dale deserves to be reimbursed and that Democrats
are blocking reimbursement for political reasons.
To put an end to partisan bickering over the issues, we Democrats
have offered a very reasonable amendment. And let me just commend the
distinguished Senators from Michigan and Nevada for their tenacity and
for their willingness to bring this issue to the floor in a way that is
certainly eminently reasonable, that recognizes past precedent, that
recognizes the importance of a procedure that has been used over and
over again in circumstances just like this.
Let us send, as they suggest in their proposal, this issue to the
neutral arbiter, the U.S. Claims Court, to determine whether it is
appropriate to reimburse Mr. Dale. Why not do what we have done in the
past? Why not use the procedure that we have in law that will allow us
a fair and objective hearing, a fair and objective analysis as to
whether or not this ought to be done?
The claims court can hold hearings to obtain all the facts outside of
the world of partisan politics 2 months before a Presidential election
and render a recommendation that will not be tainted by partisan
motivations and bias. The claims court has extensive experience in
resolving these types of claims.
The Parliamentarian has already indicated that the provision to
reimburse Mr. Dale is a private relief provision. There is a law in
place that allows the Senate to send requests for private relief to the
claims court so the court can decide whether the relief is sought in a
legal way and is legally appropriate.
Mr. President, this is a fair and well-established method for
resolving a dispute. It has worked before. Passage of this amendment
would allow the Senate to make a decision based on legal rather than
political considerations. If the claims court recommends reimbursement
for Mr. Dale, then the public would know what he actually deserves, and
we will not worry that he is the beneficiary of some political
windfall. We are willing to live by the decision made by the claims
court.

On the other hand, if the court would rule that Mr. Dale does not
deserve to be reimbursed, then he will not be given a half a million
dollars of taxpayers' money improperly. There is one-half million
dollars at stake.
The public deserves a neutral determination on this issue, and there
is an important Senate precedent at stake. We owe it to this
institution to act carefully and thoughtfully, even in the heat of a
Presidential election year.
Again, let me commend my colleagues, and for all these reasons, I
urge all of our colleagues to join them in favor of the amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time is left to Senator Reid?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-two and a half minutes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am wondering if the 8\1/2\ minutes the
leader used can be charged to leader time, and we can have the full
half hour?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
that I have consumed in the presentation of my remarks be taken from my
leader time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader has that right.
Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. I understand there
is time for debate in the morning. Is that debate part of the time
which the Chair just indicated Senator Reid has left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There has been no order entered yet with
respect to the debate tomorrow.
Mr. HATCH. As I understand it, there will be 15 minutes divided
equally, and I think that is the way we should go.
Mr. LEVIN. I also had the same understanding. I am not sure whether
that was part of a UC. I ask Senator Reid if he will yield 5 minutes to
me.
Mr. HATCH. Can we ask unanimous consent that the 15 minutes, from
9:30 to 9:45 before the vote, be divided equally between Senator Reid
and myself or Senator Shelby?
Mr. REID. I think they are planning to do that in wrapup.
Mr. HATCH. I will let it go then.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask if Senator Reid might yield 5
minutes.
Mr. REID. I yield as much time as the Senator may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is plenty of evidence of White House
mistakes and errors in the firing. Those have been acknowledged now for
years. They have been recounted here again tonight. They have been
acknowledged, as they should be. People who had legal fees that
resulted from that firing should have those legal fees reimbursed,
those who were not indicted. They have been reimbursed except for
$50,000. That $50,000 is part of this bill. That is not what is at
issue.

What is at issue is the $450,000 which would go to someone who was
properly indicted, properly prosecuted, and whether or not this Senate,
for the first time in our history, will be approving legal fees to
someone who was legally indicted. And that is the issue.
It was not the White House that carried out the criminal
investigation of Billy Dale. That was the FBI, and there is no evidence
that has been alleged that I know of that the FBI investigation that
led to the indictment was improper. There was no allegation at trial,
there was no allegation in the House committee report that the FBI
investigation that led to the criminal proceeding, that led to the
attorney's fees which are at issue here, was an improper investigation.
It was not the White House which decided to prosecute. It was a very
professional Department of Justice which made a decision to prosecute
based not on anything that the White House had done, but on what Billy
Dale had done, relative to the deposit of checks that belonged to the
Travel Office, in his own personal account, and relative to

[[Page S10315]]

cashing checks that were intended for petty cash that didn't end up
going through the petty cash ledger.
It was his actions which the FBI investigation determined were
indictable.
It was his actions, not the White House action, it was his deposit of
checks in his personal account, mingling money that did not belong to
him in his private bank account. It was those actions that led to the
indictment, led to the prosecution, not the White House action.
It was his own actions which led to an indictment which resulted in
legal fees which are the subject of this issue.
Should we, for the first time without a Senate hearing, without a
House report which makes even a reference to any impropriety in the
indictment and prosecution, should this Senate decide that this
defendant, unlike any other defendant, should have his legal fees paid,
although he was indicted?
Our good friend from Utah said, ``What about Ham Jordan?'' Ham Jordan
was not indicted. That is the dividing line which we are asked to
cross, the dividing line between people who were indicted and people
who were not.

The White House Travel Office people, except for Billy Dale, were not
indicted. Ham Jordan was not indicted. People who were investigated by
the independent counsel who were not indicted are entitled to legal
fees if legal fees result because of the existence of an independent
counsel. We have provided for legal fee reimbursement for people not
indicted. We have awarded legal fees for people not indicted. The
independent counsel statute provides for legal fees for people not
indicted.
Should we cross that line? I think we ought to be very careful of
setting a precedent, so careful that we ought to simply say, OK, these
fees will be paid subject to one thing, and that is, that we got a law
which says that we can refer a private claim, a private bill, to the
Court of Claims, and the Court of Claims can determine if there is a
legal or equitable basis for the claim.
Is there an equitable basis for this claim? The Senator from Utah
feels that there is. He feels that with great intensity, as does the
Senator from Alabama. I would propose to both of them that we test
their hypothesis. There is a test. There is a test in law. We wrote the
law. It is a reference to the Court of Claims. I propose to them that
they test their hypothesis that there was anything wrong, that there
was something wrong with the prosecution, investigation and indictment
here. Because unless there was, there is no basis for the payment of
legal fees. Test that hypothesis.
I call upon them to support an amendment which simply says, yes, we
will pay those fees if the Court of Claims finds that there was an
inequity here. That is the way to test their hypothesis. We can argue
these facts back and forth all night. But one thing is indisputable, we
have put in law a process to give us an objective evaluation of a
private claim of this kind. Take it out of politics. It does not belong
there. When you set a precedent of this kind, be sure you are acting on
firm ground, free it from any political taint, any political
coloration, refer it to the body that we have set up in law to
determine whether or not a claim of this kind is based on an equitable
claim.
Mr. President, I made an inquiry of the Chair back on May 14 relative
to the Senate bill that Senator Hatch introduced, which would provide
relief for the Travel Office employees. That inquiry which I made to
the Chair on May 14 was whether or not the bill before us, which was
that freestanding bill of Senator Hatch, is a private bill. The
Presiding Officer ruled, after, if my recollection is clear, he
consulted with the Parliamentarian, that it is a private bill.
My parliamentary inquiry at this time is, is the Senator correct that
that was the ruling of the Chair on May 14 relative to that
parliamentary inquiry?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That was the response of the Chair to that
inquiry.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for that, and I yield the
floor.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. There has been some talk about there should not be talk on
this floor about the prosecution memo, about a plea of guilty. Mr.
President, we are not in court. We are in the Senate of the United
States, some say the greatest debating society in the history of the
world. I think it is appropriate, in a great debating arena, to talk
about the facts. This is not a court of law where there are objections
as to hearsay, objections as to questions having already been asked, or
it is repetitive, or you do not understand it. We are here to bring out
the facts, the facts from wherever we might find them. We have found
facts relating to this case that for a long time have been covered up.
They have been hidden in the bowels of wherever they are hidden in this
big city.
The fact is that in this instance we have learned that there was an
instance in a document called the prosecution memo, where among other
things they found: ``We propose to charge Billy Ray Dale . . . with
converting to his own use approximately $54,000 in checks and $14,000
in cash''--and I put here recognizing that they could only get 1 year
of the money that he stole; there was a lot more money he stole, but
the records, as indicated, have been destroyed--``received by him in
connection with his official duties. The FBI has investigated this
matter and strongly supports these charges.'' Justice Department,
Public Integrity Section.

We are here in the Senate of the United States to talk about the
facts. And the facts are, this man was indicted, and he was properly
indicted. There was never a question of whether or not he was properly
indicted. Had it been on the basis of the legislation talked about by
my friend from Michigan, these facts would have never been given to the
American public, they would have never been given to the American
public that he wrote a letter through his attorney saying he would
plead guilty, that the prosecution memo, line after line, indicates
that this man did a lot of things that were criminal in nature. The
fact, Mr. President, that he was acquitted by a jury is really too bad.
But it happens, it happens in our system of justice.
It is simply wrong to accuse this administration of leaking the memo.
I do not think it is my obligation to indicate where the prosecution
memo was obtained, but I do know that I obtained it, and I do know it
did not come from anybody in the Justice Department, did not come from
anybody in the White House, directly or indirectly. It is a reckless
charge, lacking in merit. We are entitled, in this Senate Chamber, to
talk about letters written admitting guilt. We are entitled, in this
Senate Chamber, to talk about facts as determined in a prosecution
memo.
Mr. HATCH. Would the Senator yield on that for just a question?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield for a question.
Mr. HATCH. I appreciate my colleague yielding.
My question is this. I know the Senator did not get it from the White
House directly or from the Justice Department directly, because the
Senator told me where he got it. The Senator got it from the House of
Representatives, which I presume whomever they got it from got it from
the White House or the Justice Department. Those are the only two
places it could have been obtained. I am not accusing the Senator from
Nevada, although I question--I question--whether a document that so one
sided should be used especially a document that is confidential. I
question whether that sort of document should be used on the floor of
the Senate.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Utah, and he is my friend from the
neighboring State of Utah, that the prosecution memo sets forth facts
in the case. We are entitled in this body to have facts in the case. We
have heard a lot of facts over these many months from the other side
about this poor Billy Dale, how he has just been put upon by everybody.
The fact of the matter is, he has not been. The fact of the matter is,
he was indicted, properly indicted. After having been indicted, he had
a letter written saying, ``I want to plead guilty.'' And I think we are
entitled to hear that. The American taxpayers are entitled to hear it.
I think it is important to acknowledge, not only that, but his
admissions during the trial phase.
Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for an additional question?

[[Page S10316]]

Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield for an additional question.
Mr. LEVIN. It is in line with the question of the Senator from Utah.
Is it not true that when the Justice Department was asked for that
prosecution memo by the House, it did everything in its power not to
give that prosecution memo to the House, and, as a matter of fact, it
was only after the House subpoenaed that prosecution memo that it was
then delivered to the House? So it is not as though the Department of
Justice just handed it over to the House. They told the House, this is
a sensitive document. They did not want to turn that over to the House.
The House, Representative Clinger insisted on it, issued a subpoena,
and that is when this document was delivered to the House of
Representatives. Is that correct?
Mr. REID. Absolutely, that is correct. It is not just that the
Justice Department was hoping who would read it. They did not want to
give it up.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. REID. Yes.
Mr. HATCH. The Justice Department was not subpoenaed for that
document. If anybody was, it was the White House. Why would they have
that document?
Mr. REID. I do not know how they got it. But it was by virtue of the
subpoena.
Mr. HATCH. But you do not know?
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Michigan and my friend from Utah, I
do not know how it wound up in the House. It got there as a result of
Chairman Clinger wanting it and having gotten it, and it worked its way
to this body, as it should.
Now, I repeat, if the Billy Dale constituency is so confident that
they have merits on their side, they should allow for this to be
removed from this political arena during this Presidential election
time and decided by an independent body. That is why we have the Court
of Claims.
There has been a lot of talk here tonight about other Travel Office
employees. The other Travel Office employees were not indicted, and
they have been or will be fully reimbursed. They have gotten most of
their money now, except for a few incidentals, and everyone
acknowledges they should be paid. We are willing to do that.
The House and others at the time they acted simply did not have the
facts. Billy Dale is not an honest person. The jury did not find that
he was honest. They acquitted him. The jury in the Menendez brothers
case did not find they were good sons. They acquitted them on the first
go-round. They were acquitted. It was a hung jury--hung jury. They did
not find that they were nice young men who were good to their parents,
just as this jury did not find that Billy Dale was honest. That was not
a requirement of their findings. They looked at jury instructions and
ruled upon those jury instructions in weighing the fact that he was not
guilty as charged.
I disagree with them. I think any reasonable person would. But the
prosecution did a lousy job of presenting the case to the jury. It
happens.
He admitted being dishonest, and I think it is important we recognize
that there are many disputed facts. My good friend, the distinguished
senior Senator from Utah, says there are no disputed facts. There are
lots of disputed facts. That is why, in my opinion, it is not right to
give him attorney's fees. This is raw politics. This money is not for
trial. Some of the money in the time sheets that have been presented
deal with even press events. He had to appear at press events.
Mr. President, the prosecution memo, we should not leave that memo so
soon. We will go to a few pages on the prosecution memo in summation.
Shortly after the Travel Office employees were fired, the FBI began
its investigation under our supervision. The vast majority of the
allegations we examined prove meritless as to other Travel Office
employees. However, we found substantial evidence that Dale, in fact,
stole at least $14,000 in petty cash, and he converted approximately
$54,000 worth of travel checks to his own use.
We found no evidence of illegal conduct by any other member of the
Travel Office. That is why we have agreed to reimburse them. The media
checks selected by Dale for deposit in his account were not for Main
Street press organizations but English, Japanese, German, and Hispanic
media.
The selection is significant. The refunds were generated by the
vendors on their own and arrived unexpectedly, and their absence would
not be missed. Similarly, the checks from the esoteric news services
were less likely to be scrutinized.
Mr. President, I think it is also of note in the prosecution memo--
because until I read this, this is the first I knew about this--the
petty cash logs covering the period prior to February 1992 are missing.
Dale had no explanation for the missing logs. These deal with petty
cash. This is where he got the cash. He did not deal with checks in
this instance.
Another few lines from the prosecution memo:

The evidence indicates that Dale stole this missing $14,000
in cash.

There was simply no need to cash these sizable checks
at the time they were presented.

He cannot claim credibly he used the relatively large
amounts of unrecorded cash to pay trip expenses during this
period.

Finally:

Dale's explanation is not credible.

That is what this case is all about. That is why the Court of Claims
should review this.
Mr. President, this is important that we go forward on this to the
Court of Claims. It would take politics out of this. It would send it
to a body that is designated under our laws and the Constitution to
deal with cases like this. Hundreds and hundreds of cases have been
forwarded to them--private claims cases.
Now, if this amendment offered by the Senators from Nevada, Michigan,
and Delaware, if it does not pass, if this amendment does not pass, the
next thing that will be said is that the Senate approved the payment of
$500,000 to Billy Ray Dale. The fact of the matter is that the right
way to handle this is not in the political arena, where people are
crowing over what was done or not done. The fact is, it should be
referred to the Court of Claims, and let this body decide this disputed
factual case on the facts and on the money.
We are given $500,000, or $499,999 to approve this. This is the
dispute, the amount of money. And there is a dispute whether he is
entitled to it and whether he is entitled to the amount of money
requested.
We have done, I think, the honorable thing. We have come before this
body, as many have suggested, in an outright denial in the amendment of
giving him this money. We have done it, we think, in a reasonable
manner, and we have an independent third party determine whether or not
this money should be paid to Billy Ray Dale and, if so, how much should
be paid.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HATCH. How much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 20 minutes remaining, and the
other side has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me just say a few words, and then I
will again yield the floor. I would like not to use all of my time, if
my colleagues are willing to yield back.
The distinguished Senator from Michigan has repeatedly stated time
and time again that Mr. Dale put money into his own account. No one
disputes that. That is the way it was done through the years, and there
was nothing illegal about doing that, either. The White House Travel
Office is run for the benefit of the White House and the media. As part
of that job, Mr. Dale had to have access to funds on short notice. No
one has complained about that fact. Most importantly, the media did not
care that Mr. Dale put their money, the media's money, into his
account.
However, Mr. Dale does deny, and the jury agreed, that he did not
steal or convert that money or those funds, and was found not guilty of
the charges that were levied against him. In fact, one of the
distinguished members of the media testified for him, Sam Donaldson,
one of the most well-known people in the press today, a person for whom
I have a lot of respect.
The fact of the matter is that the Justice Department can indict
anybody they want to. Grand juries generally do what the prosecutors
tell them to do.

[[Page S10317]]

That is no big deal. I find it unconscionable that after having been
tried, having incurred legal expenses of half a million dollars, and
then having a jury of his peers acquit him that my colleagues here on
the Senate floor are suggesting that they think Mr. Dale is still
guilty.
I do not find that in good form. Frankly, it really is a sin,
especially when you go to the real facts of how this man and his
partners, his colleagues in the Travel Office, were screwed by the
White House, for greedy purposes, by people who just got the White
House, thought they had total power, and wanted to move their friends
into the lucrative Travel Office business. I am specifically speaking
of Mr. and Mrs. Thomasson and a personal relative of the President. Not
only did they do that, but they even used White House counsel to
intimidate the FBI in this matter. They did an inadequate accounting in
this matter. It was anything to get rid of these people so they could
put their cronies into this lucrative position.
These people had served the White House for years, various
Presidents, and had done so with the respect of all prior White Houses.
The White House itself, in the memo I read earlier, found in the
material sent by the White House, said they had messed this up, and
they had acted improperly.
This is from the White House:

You all may dimly remember the Travel Office affair, in
which a number of the White House staff--many immature and
self-promoting--took impulsive and foolhardy actions to root
out problems at the beginning of the Clinton administration
and to then gallantly recommend that they take over its
operation.

That was straight out of a document provided by the White House.
The fact is that I don't think anybody who looks at this fairly could
deny that these people deserve to be treated fairly. This is a question
of fairness. It is a question of justice. It is a question of making
amends for a White House that acted improperly, and did so, for the
most part based on personal greed.
To clarify the record, I have done some investigation in the interim
period here. I want to discuss, for a minute, the exposure of the plea
agreement and the prosecution memo. I believe these are the accurate
facts. We have checked with the parties concerned. The White House
called us and said they were not responsible. I don't want to accuse
the White House. I just said it has to be the Justice Department or the
White House, one or the other. That is all it could be. In fact, the
plea agreement was leaked from the Department of Justice or the White
House to U.S. News and World Report. In addition, the Department of
Justice, when they did produce that document to Chairman Clinger's
committee, failed, in violation of their own regulations, to treat that
document in a sensitive and confidential manner. The second document,
the prosecution memorandum, was produced after the trial to the House
of Representatives. Once again, someone on the Democrat side of the
House of Representatives leaked this very confidential memo. Once
again, it is my contention that this Administration and their friends
in Congress would do anything to harass Mr. Dale.
It is hypocritical. It is hypocritical for the White House to take
care of their own people and not be willing to right this wrong. I
can't imagine anybody who looks at the facts, clearly, coming to any
other conclusion other than that this is an injustice to these people,
a terrible ordeal to Mr. Dale and his family, and it ought to be
rectified. That is what the Congress is trying to do at this point.
That is certainly what I am trying to do. I think that is what any
fair-minded person would try to do.
To come in here and make a case that they don't believe that Mr. Dale
was innocent, after he was proven innocent, after a jury of his peers
found him to be innocent, after members of the media, whose money was
involved, testified he was innocent, is pretty astounding to me. Once
again, I oppose the motion of the Senator from Nevada to strike the
language to reimburse the legal expenses of the seven White House
Travel Office employees who were victimized by the Clinton
administration for nothing more than political favoritism.
The only crime that Mr. Dale and his colleagues committed was having
the bad fortune of holding a job which political cronies of the White
House wanted. The politicization of the Department of Justice and the
FBI in bringing numerous investigations, and finally a bogus
prosecution against Mr. Dale, is unconscionable and it should not be
tolerated. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that such
a payment is unprecedented, in response to which, I say, the
circumstances by which Billy Dale was persecuted and smeared, and the
others fired, is unprecedented. It deserves unprecedented treatment and
resolution. And it should be treated as such. This is a meritorious
case. If I have ever seen one, this is one. What was done to these
people should never have occurred in this manner. House Republicans and
House Democrats recognize this fact. Why can't Senate Republicans and
Senate Democrats recognize this fact? I think everybody in this body
really knows this to be the fact. If we in Congress are to reimburse
legal fees on a case-by-case basis when the case merits it, then that
is a good thing. I have never seen a case more worthy than this
particular case.
Now, there is no reason to go to the court of claims in this matter.
Let's just do what is right. There is no doubt in my mind that part of
the reason why our colleagues on the other side want the court of
claims to decide this matter is so they get it beyond the election.
Frankly, this should not involve the election. This is doing what is
right. If I were the President, I would say, if you could get rid of
this, do what's right, pass the bill, and let it be forgotten.
But I will tell you some people who are never going to forget this,
even if this bill passes and the President signs it into law, and that
is Billy Dale and the people with him. No amount of reimbursement of
attorney fees, no amount of compensation, no amount of money,
compensatory, punitive, or otherwise, will make up for what they have
been through. I can tell you right now that Billy Dale undoubtedly has
lost 8 or 10 years of his life because of this ordeal, and so would
anybody in this body.
I want you to know that if we have any self-respect at all, this body
will do what is right here. I am asking my colleagues to do what's
right here. I hope there are some on the other side that will see their
way clear to do what's right in this matter. That is what I ask.
If my colleagues are prepared to yield back their time, I will yield
back mine.
Mr. LEVIN. I ask for 2 additional minutes.
Mr. HATCH. I will reserve the balance of my time then.
Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Nevada yield 2 minutes?
Mr. REID. Yes.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have a couple of quick comments. First of
all, I believe I heard the Senator from Utah, some minutes back, say
that the Justice Department leaked the prosecution memo. I now ask
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the
Justice Department to Representative William Clinger, saying that the
only reason they are presenting this prosecution memo, as
Representative Clinger was insisting upon, is because they were
threatening the Attorney General with contempt, unless that prosecution
memo was provided to the House committee.
So this was not a memo that was provided to anybody willingly, as far
as I know, by the Justice Department. This was a memo that was
subpoenaed and obtained upon threat of contempt of the Attorney General
herself.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the Department of
Justice, not from the White House, to Representative Clinger, dated May
8, saying that they were now enclosing this, despite their very strong
reluctance to do so, and it was all set forth in this letter, be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HATCH. What I said was that somebody from either the Justice
Department or White House leaked it to the U.S. News & World Report
before Chairman Clinger asked for this material.
Mr. LEVIN. I don't know what the basis of the Senator's statement
is--

[[Page S10318]]

Mr. HATCH. The U.S. News & World Report.
Mr. LEVIN. The basis of the Senator's statement 10 minutes ago that
the Justice Department leaked this, it seems to me, is not established
by any factual evidence that he has provided.
Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield, the point I was making is this.
Although Representative Clinger had a right to ask for it, I am not
sure they should have given it to him. But they did. But at least
before they gave it to him, somebody leaked it to U.S. News & World
Report. That somebody had to be somebody in the Justice Department or
the White House, which were the only two bodies who could possibly have
had it. The White House called me, and, in all fairness to them, they
said it wasn't them.
So it had to be. If it was not them, the Justice Department, or
somebody who got into the Justice Department, stole it. I do not think
that is possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Legislative Affairs,

Washington, DC, May 8, 1996.
Hon. William F. Clinger, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House
of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Based upon my conversation with Barbara
Olson this morning, we understand that the Attorney General
will be removed from the Committee's contempt proceedings
agenda as a result of our providing the enclosed documents.
The enclosed documents are the prosecution memorandum for
Billy Ray Dale and a related prosecutorial decisionmaking
document plus two declination memoranda concerning decisions
not to bring criminal charges against other individuals. As
our February 26th letter explained other individuals. As our
February 26th letter explained, extremely sensitive criminal
justice documents of this kind are made available outside the
Department only under the most extraordinary circumstances.
We made these particular documents available for committee
review only as a result of the Committee's subpoena; we
brought them to the Committee's offices for review three
times and advised the staff that we would return with them as
often as necessary to accommodate the Committee's oversight
needs.
We would prefer to continue to provide these core
deliberative documents to the Committee on that basis. In
light of the Committee's announced intention to hold the
Attorney General of the United States in contempt of
Congress, we are forwarding these documents to you. In doing
so, we do not intend to prejudice in any way the Department's
response to any future requests from the Committee or any
other congressional committee.
We are very concerned that the public disclosure of this
deliberative process and attorney work product material might
inhibit the candor of our internal deliberations. We have
requested and Committee staff have agreed that access to
these types of documents will be limited to Members and
Committee staff and that the Committee will not disclose the
documents outside the Committee without first affording the
Department an opportunity to confer with staff further about
our concerns regarding such disclosure. We reiterate that
request as to these documents and, further, urge the
Committee to limit access to Committee staff only and make no
copies.
Sincerely,
Andrew Fois,
Assistant Attorney General.

Mr. LEVIN. The document in question had been brought to the
committees, and I am now here quoting the letter, prior to its being
delivered pursuant to the threat of contempt of the Attorney General,
that these documents, according to the letter, were made ``available
for committee review only as a result of the committee's subpoena; we
brought them to the committee's offices for review three times and
advised the staff that we would return with them as often as necessary
to accommodate the committee's oversight needs. We would prefer to
continue to provide these core deliberative documents to the committee
on that basis.''
But then they go on to say, ``In light of the committee's announced
intention to hold the Attorney General of the United States in contempt
of Congress, we are forwarding these documents to you.''
They have previously shared the document with Members three times. So
to attribute leaks to any particular source without evidence under
these circumstances, it seems to me, is without foundation.
No. 2, I may have misheard the Senator from Utah on this. I may have
misheard the Senator from Utah on another point. If I did, then I would
stand corrected. I believe, however, that the Senator from Utah said
that he had deposited checks that belonged to the Travel Office for 30
years in his own account.
Mr. HATCH. No, I didn't say that. I said he had been depositing some
of the checks of the media.
Mr. LEVIN. That this was done regularly.
Mr. HATCH. It was done regularly for years.
Mr. LEVIN. No one knew it.
Mr. HATCH. The people there knew it.
Mr. LEVIN. Oh, no. May I make this very clear? No one knew that he
was depositing checks in his own personal checking account.
Mr. HATCH. The media has never objected. The point I was making is
the media, when they knew about it, never objected--never objected at
any time. And, in fact, one major representative of the media
testified--
Mr. LEVIN. His colleagues did not know. The FBI was not informed when
they were investigating the practices in the office. Peat Marwick, when
they looked at this, were not informed by him that he had done this.
So the point that that practice being somehow or other appropriate
because it had been going on for a long time, it seems to me, begs the
question.
Finally, I would urge my friend from Utah to test this course of
action. He said that he cannot imagine anyone coming to any other
conclusion than the one that he has come to, that there was an
injustice for these people. Again, I urge him to test that hypothesis
by doing what we do regularly with private bills, which is to refer
them to the Court of Claims. This will be the only defendant in history
legally indicted whose legal fees will be paid. It will be the only
defendant whose legal fees will have been paid who was properly
indicted.
The Senator from Utah feels, with great certainty under his
hypothesis, that no one else can come to any other conclusion that an
injustice was done here should be tested by doing what we have done
with private bills over and over and over again. This would be the
exception to a rule that we do not pay legal fees to people properly
indicted.
Test the hypothesis, Senator. Send this claim to the Court of
Appeals. And, if you are right, that they find, and that any reasonable
person would find, that there was an inequity here, in fact, not only
will the fees be paid, but they should be paid. But that should be done
by an objective person, an objective party, an objective institution,
the Court of Claims, and not by this body 2 months before an election
in the heat of a political campaign.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, because the question has been raised from
the trial transcript at pages 129 and 130, Dale admitted that he didn't
tell anyone else at the Travel Office that he was putting these checks
into his own account and not the Travel Office account. He admitted
that he didn't even tell the individual he worked with in the Travel
Office for 30 years, his chief assistant, Gary Wright, of this
practice.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HATCH. I will take a couple of minutes, Mr. President.
For the record, in the House interview with the Peat Marwick
representative that was so mightily represented here, the Peat Marwick
representative said that this case, meaning the White House Travel
Office audit, was the only one he has been involved in where he was
told the outcome before the investigation was completed.
This was a trumped-up case against decent people, and even though
everybody admits that it would have been better for Mr. Dale to not
have put the money in his account, that it was a mistake to do that,
nevertheless, nobody that I know of accuses him of having taken that
money for his own use. In fact, to the contrary, the testimony in the
trial, and that which resulted in his acquittal, was that he used the
money properly, that he had to have access to it to be able to solve
the problems with the media.
So I think it is really overreaching to try to say because a person
is indicted, that an injustice could not have occurred. I can give a
lot of cases where

[[Page S10319]]

people have been unjustly indicted. This is one of them. This is an
exceptional case. It ought to be treated exceptionally.
The fact of the matter is that the White House was trying to please
four people, Harry Thomasson and his wife, Linda, Catherine, Cornelius,
and Clerissa Cerda. The David Watkins memo makes that clear. I do not
think anybody could read that memo and then fail to get outraged by the
way these people were treated.
Finally, just to make the Record clear, the plea agreement was leaked
by someone in the Justice Department, or the White House, to U.S. News
& World Report. The prosecution memo was provided to Chairman Clinger,
who shared it with his minority counterparts, and somebody on the
minority staff gave it to the media. The plea agreement had to be
leaked by either the White House or the Justice Department. I am
willing to take the White House word that they did not do that. Then,
it had to be somebody in the Justice Department who did, because they
are the only other people who had access to it. And it was improper. It
was wrong. It was unethical.
But be that as it may, that does not change the facts of this case
that these were decent people who had served successive Presidencies,
who had decent reputations, who did their job well and who pleased both
the White House and the media, who were just plain mistreated,
unjustly, by a superaggressive White House that was acting in its own
greedy interests. And if there is ever a case where we ought to stand
up and say this is an exceptional situation, we ought to provide this
exceptional remedy, this is the case to do it in.
So I am asking my colleagues to vote for the Hatch amendment, which
would grant these funds, and to vote down the Reid-Levin amendment,
which would again force this man to get attorneys and go to the Court
of Claims to get that which is justly his to begin with. That is what
you call justice in America: making wrongs right.
Having said all of that, I understand I still have some time. So I
yield the remainder of my time, and I do not want to keep my colleagues
any longer than I have to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.

Live Animal Holding Facility at Boise State University

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to discuss with the Chairman a
process that has been initiated between the General Services
Administration [GSA] and several Federal, State and local agencies, of
which the Appropriations Committee would want to take cognizance. This
process concerns the feasibility of designing and constructing a live
animal research and holding facility at Boise State University.
The facility would be used for basic and applied ecological research,
providing biological information and related technical support to
natural resource managers and policymakers, and education and
information transfer. It would directly serve the Raptor Research
Center at Boise State University.
A first meeting has been held between GSA representatives and some of
the agencies that will use the proposed facility, including the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the
Peregrine Fund, and Boise State University, which would be the site of
the facility. GSA believes this is the kind of project that falls
within its purview and is something that may be beneficial to
undertake.
Mr. SHELBY. I thank the Senator from Idaho for providing this
information and would ask what are the goals of this process at this
time?
Mr. CRAIG. The discussions currently underway are preliminary and
should lead to a determination of whether to initiate a formal
feasibility study.
Mr. SHELBY. Does the Senator foresee any costs associated with these
preliminary steps?
Mr. CRAIG. No. These initial contacts are necessary to determine if
the project can and should be pursued by GSA and other agencies
involved.
Mr. SHELBY. I thank the Senator for this information and assure him
the committee will follow the outcome of these meetings with interest.
Such activities would be under this subcommittee's jurisdiction and we
will want to continue to monitor any progress on this project and keep
it under consideration for the future.

regulatory accounting

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to address the regulatory
accounting provision in section 645 of the Treasury-postal
appropriations bill, H.R. 3756. I believe the public has the right to
know the benefits of Federal regulatory programs, as well as their
costs, which have been estimated to be $600 billion per year.
To address concerns raised by Senators Glenn and Levin, I made
technical changes. First, subsection 645(a)(1) requires OMB to provide
estimates of the total annual costs and benefits of Federal regulatory
programs in the upcoming fiscal year. This includes impacts from rules
issued before fiscal year 1997, not just new rules. But OMB need not
assess costs and benefits realized in preceding years. I deleted the
word ``cumulative'' to clarify that. OMB should use the valuable
information already available, and supplement it where needed. Where
agencies have, or can produce, detailed information on the costs and
benefits of individual programs, they should use it. I expect a rule of
reason will prevail: Where the agencies can produce detail that will be
informative to the Congress and the public, they should do so. Where it
is extremely burdensome to provide such detail, broader estimates
should suffice.
Subsection 645(a)(3) requires OMB to assess the direct and indirect
impacts of Federal rules on the private sector, State and local
government, and the Federal Government. Beyond compliance costs,
regulation also creates a drag on real wages, economic growth, and
productivity. OMB should use available information, where relevant, to
assess the direct and indirect impacts of Federal rules. OMB also
should discuss the serious problem of unfunded Federal mandates and
inform Congress what it is doing about the problem.
In the end, I expect OMB to produce a credible and reliable picture
of the regulatory process--a picture that highlights the costs and
benefits of regulatory programs and that allows Congress to determine
which programs and program elements are working well, and which are
not.

erie federal courthouse project

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to address the issue of
funding for the Erie Federal Complex construction project, which
includes a courthouse annex. The current courthouse provides inadequate
space and is not consolidated at a single location. The new facility
will accommodate the existing and anticipated future demands of the
courts and will allow for the consolidation of the courts in one
convenient location. The House bill for fiscal year 1997 provides the
$3.3 million required for site acquisition and design work, as
requested by the General Services Administration. I am troubled,
however, that the Senate bill does not include funding for the Erie
Federal Complex.
I join with my constituents in Erie in recognizing the importance of
this project to the community and support funding the Erie project in
fiscal year 1997. This project is duly authorized. Further, $3.135
million for site acquisition and design was contained in both the House
and Senate versions of the fiscal year 1995 Treasury, postal
appropriations bill, but was dropped in conference that year because of
an internal House decision to defund certain projects which I am
advised was not based on the merits of the proposed Erie project.
I would ask the distinguished Chairman, my good friend from Alabama,
for his views on the Erie project and whether he believes it merits
favorable consideration during conference.
Mr. SHELBY. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for his comments
in support of the Federal Complex project, which will benefit the
administration of justice in Erie, PA. I regret that the Senate funding
levels are constrained and that it has been difficult to identify funds
for a number of worthwhile courthouse projects. As we proceed to
conference with the House, I intend to work closely with the senior
Senator from Pennsylvania to obtain funds for site acquisition and
design, as requested by the Administration. The Erie project has been
approved for funds by the Senate in previous legislation and thus
deserves our best efforts.

[[Page S10320]]

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would ask for just a few moments to
discuss my amendment, which the Senate unanimously adopted during
yesterday's debate. First, let me thank Senators Shelby and Kerrey for
their support and hard work in crafting the Treasury-postal
appropriations legislation before us.
My amendment, which expresses the sense of the Congress, relates to
the Internal Revenue Service telephone assistance program, one which
the IRS advertises as a first line of assistance to the American
taxpayer. I am pleased that it is now included in this bill because
when it comes to telephone assistance, the IRS customer service record
is abysmal. In fact, it's an embarrassment.
In fiscal year 1995, IRS assistors reportedly answered 38 percent of
taxpayers' calls. In fiscal year 1996, the figure improved slightly,
but still only 46 percent of taxpayers got through to IRS assistance
personnel. In other words, currently, less than half of the taxpayers
in need of help even get through to an IRS assistor, and that may be
after trying once or trying 10 times. In terms of pure accessibility,
the statistics are even more startling. During the fiscal year 1996
filing season, a mere 20 percent of taxpayers got through to an IRS
assistor on their first try.
As many of my colleagues know, before coming to the United States
Senate, I ran a business. And if there's one simple bit of wisdom
learned from my years in business, and practiced to the best of my
ability, it is that the customer always comes first. In adopting my
amendment, I am pleased that the Senate has spoken with one voice in
sending that same message to the IRS--take whatever steps necessary to
put your customers, the taxpayers of this country, first.
I would add that I know customer service is of great concern to the
distinguished ranking member, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, who cochairs
the National Commission to Restructure the Internal Revenue Service. I
hope that we can continue to work together on this issue when the
Commission reports to Congress next July.
Mr. President, each year Americans in all walks of life and from
every income bracket encounter questions when filling out tax forms and
calculating tax obligations. And since few people dispute the
challenges of navigating the current tax code, it comes as no surprise
that many Americans seek help in order to fulfill their civic duty
responsibly and accurately. The IRS' toll free 1-800 assistance service
would seem a logical first step. But the IRS, on the receiving end, if
you will, picks up the line less than half the time. Thus, the majority
of callers do not even have the opportunity to pose, let alone work
out, their questions.
This fact is troubling, very troubling, particularly when considered
in light of other problems. For example, many constituents in my
homestate of Wisconsin who have the good fortune, or should I say the
good luck, to get through to IRS assistors, have then been put on hold
and subjected to significant waits that have sometimes ended with a
random and inexplicable disconnection of the line.
Simply put, this level of service is unacceptable. And in the end,
it's not unreasonable to speculate that it works against our overall
efforts to streamline the government. After all, if taxpayer questions
are not being answered, more mistakes are being made and more IRS
follow-up and investigation is required.
The IRS is aware of the problems. The General Accounting Office has
issued reports. The Social Security Administration and private sector
interests provide numerous examples of ways to improve telephone
assistance. And now Congress has made the first of what may be many
calls to the IRS, urging them to establish performance goals, operating
standards and management practices--whatever it takes to get the lines
answered and put the customer first.

ATF ``Disability Relief'' Program

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I say to Senator Lautenberg, I would like
to raise an issue of great importance. The current version of this
appropriations bill would not fund the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms' [ATF] disability relief program. Under current Federal law,
someone who has been convicted of a crime punishable by more than 1
year is ineligible, or disabled, from possessing a firearm--a sensible
idea. However, Congress created a loophole in 1965 whereby convicted
felons could apply to ATF to have their firearm privileges restored, at
an estimated taxpayer cost of $10,000 per waiver granted.
We have fought to end this program and have succeeded in stripping
the program's funding in annual appropriations bills since 1992.
This year, we face an additional challenge in our efforts to keep
guns out of the hands of convicted felons. A recent court case in
Pennsylvania has misinterpreted our intentions and opened the door for
these convicted felons to apply for judicial review of their disability
relief applications.
In this case, Rice versus United States, the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals found that the current funding prohibition does not make clear
congressional intent to bar all avenues of relief for convicted felons.
By their reasoning, since ATF is unable to consider applications for
relief, felons are entitled to ask the courts to review their
applications.
This misguided decision could flood the courts with felons seeking
the restoration of their gun rights, effectively shifting from ATF to
the courts the burden of considering these applications. Instead of
wasting taxpayer money and the time of ATF agents--which could be much
better spent on important law enforcement efforts, such as the
investigation of church arsons--we would now be wasting court resources
and distracting the courts from consideration of serious criminal
cases.

Fortunately, another decision by the fifth circuit in U.S. versus
McGill found that congressional intent to prohibit any Federal relief--
either through ATF or the courts--is clear. The fifth circuit concluded
that convicted felons are therefore not eligible for judicial review of
their relief applications.
Given this conflict in the circuit courts, we should clarify our
original and sustaining intention. The goal of this provision has
always been to prohibit convicted felons from getting their guns back--
whether through ATF or the courts. It was never our intention to shift
the burden to the courts.
Congressman Durbin and his colleagues succeeded in their efforts to
include language in the House appropriations bill to make clear that
convicted felons may not use the courts in their efforts to get their
guns back. I applaud the House committee for its wise vote on this
issue.
During the same markup, Congressman Durbin's efforts were undermined
by a related exemption offered by Congressman Obey. This exemption
would allow those individuals convicted of nonviolent felonies the
ability to appeal for judicial review of their relief application.
According to Congressman Obey's amendment, the opportunity to appeal
to the courts would be closed to those ``felons convicted of violent
crimes, firearms violations, or drug-related crimes.'' All other felons
would be allowed to apply to the courts for review of their relief
applications.
Mr. Obey's exemption is clearly inconsistent with the original intent
of this provision for three simple reasons:
First, one need only consider people like Al Capone and countless
other violent criminals who were convicted of lesser, nonviolent
felonies, to understand how dangerous this ``Capone amendment'' will be
to public safety. Our intent when we first passed this provision--and
every year thereafter--has been to prohibit anyone who was convicted of
a crime punishable by more than 1 year from restoring their gun
privileges via the ATF procedure or a judicial review.
Second, as Dewey Stokes, the former President of the Fraternal Order
of Police noted, most criminals do not commit murder as their
first crime. Rather, most criminals start by committing non-violent
crimes which escalate into violent crimes. An ATF analysis shows that
between 1985 and 1992, 69 non-violent felons were granted firearms
relief and subsequently re-arrested for violent crimes such as
attempted murder, first degree sexual assault, child molestation,
kidnaping/abduction, and drug trafficking.

[[Page S10321]]

Third, there is no reason in the world for the taxpayers' money and
court resources to be wasted by allowing the review of any convicted
felons' application to get their guns back. It made no sense for ATF to
take agents away from their important law enforcement work, and it
makes even less sense for the courts, which have no experience or
expertise in this area, to be burdened with this unnecessary job. Let
me make this point perfectly clear: It was never our intent, nor is it
now, for the courts to review a convicted felon's application for
firearm privilege restoration.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator for clearly laying out the facts.
As the coauthor of this provision, I share his interest and concern
about this issue. I agree with his analysis completely and intend to
closely follow this situation in the coming year to see if any further
legislation is necessary to clarify our intent. I would also like to
take this opportunity to let my colleague know how much I enjoyed
working on this issue with him as well as so many other matters. I want
to ensure him that although he will not be here next year to continue
his work in the Senate on this matter, I fully intend to carry on the
fight for us both.

flexibility for telecommuting centers

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in an effort to meet the changing needs of
the Federal work force, I rise in support of a provision contained in
the Treasury postal appropriations bill which authorizes the General
Services Administration to begin work on a series of flexiplace work
telecommuting centers.
Currently, many Federal employees from both the legislative and
executive branches are enjoying the convenience and efficiency of six
completed telecommuting centers located throughout the Metropolitan
Washington, DC area.
While Federal employees enjoy the advantages of working at these
telecommuting centers, their employer, the Federal Government, reaps
the benefits of increased productivity and improved work quality.
As the Senate accepts the important responsibility to reign in
Federal spending and control our Federal debt, we surely realize that
these telecommuting centers must be economically self-supporting or
they will not succeed.
For that reason, I, along with my friend in the House of
Representatives, Congressman Frank Wolf, have asked our respective
Appropriations Committees to insert language granting much needed
flexibility to the General Services Administration in regard to
telecommuting centers.
In order to maintain these centers as self-sufficient entities, the
Congress must allow non-Federal employees to fill any vacant slots in
the telecommuting centers. Currently, Federal employees cannot fill all
of the slots all of the time, so it only makes sense to allow non-
Federal employees utilize these facilities and increase the revenue
going to these important centers.
This legislation also permits the Administrator of General Services
Administration to transfer control of any or all of the telecommuting
centers to State, local, or nonprofit organizations. This step will
further ensure the economic viability of these telecommuting centers.
While maintaining the necessary commitments to our Federal work
force, this language will provide the necessary flexibility to let
these telecommuting centers thrive and prosper without Federal
micromanagement and increased Government spending.

____________________