[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.

  Next:

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

  Next:

       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.

                          ____________________