S6448 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 10, 1995

Perhaps President Clinton said it

best today:

If you asked me to summarize in a word or

two what happened today, I would say that

we advanced the security interests of the

people of the United States and the people of

Russia.

I should also note that, regarding

Chechnya, the President spoke out

strongly and publicly against Russian

action in Chechnya at an event at Moscow State University. He has made

clear to President Yeltsin and to the

Russian people the United States position. Tomorrow he will meet with opposition leaders and with the family of

Fred Cuny, the American aid worker

still missing in Chechnya.

So I would say the President certainly went to Russia knowing we have

serious differences with Russia, but

committed to the essential process of

supporting democratic roots and institutions in Russia and developing our

relationship with the Russian people.

The list of accomplishments is impressive, and the trip continues.

I only hope that in the interest of ensuring the greatest degree of success,

at least until he returns, we give him

the greatest benefit of the doubt, that

we offer him our support, that we send

the right message to the Russian people that we stand behind this President

as he negotiates, as he continues to

confront the many very perplexing issues that we must address in our complicated relationship with the people of

Russia and certainly Russian leadership.

So, again, I must say I think in 2

days it is remarkable the President has

developed the list of accomplishments

he has. I hope we could continue to add

to that list in the remaining time the

President spends in Russia. It was a

trip well spent. It was a trip I think we

can look on with some satisfaction. I

hope as the President continues to

travel we can demonstrate our support

for him and for his efforts, and wish

him well as he continues.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. CHAFEE pertaining to the introduction of S. 789 are located in today’s RECORD under ‘‘Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint

Resolutions.’’)

INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT

fThe Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

pending question before the body is the

substitute amendment reported by the

Committee on Environment and Public

Works to S. 534. Is there further

amendment?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested.

The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to

call the roll.

Mr. SPECTER. 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. 754

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate

on taking all possible steps to combat domestic terrorism in the United States)

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send

an amendment to the desk on behalf of

myself, Senator CRAIG, Senator GRASSLEY, and Senator BROWN, and ask for

its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report the amendment.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SPECTER] for himself, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. GRASSLEY,

and Mr. BROWN, proposes an amendment

numbered 754.

The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) There has been enormous public concern, worry and fear in the U.S. over international terrorism for many years;

(2) There has been enormous public concern, worry and fear in the U.S. over the

threat of domestic terrorism after the bombing of the New York World Trade Center on

February 26, 1993;

(3) There is even more public concern,

worry and fear since the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995;

(4) Public concern, worry and fear has been

aggravated by the fact that it appears that

the terrorist bombing at the Federal building in Oklahoma City was perpetrated by

Americans;

(5) The United States Senate should take

all action within its power to understand and

respond in all possible ways to threats of domestic as well as international terrorism;

(6) Serious questions of public concern

have been raised about the actions of federal

law enforcement officials including agents

from the Federal Bureau of Investigation

and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms relating to the arrest of Mr. Randy

Weaver and others in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in

August, 1992 and Mr. David Koresh and others associated with the Branch Davidian sect

in Waco, Taxas, between February 28, 1993,

and April 19, 1993;

(7) Inquiries by the Executive Branch have

left serious unanswered questions on these

incidents;

(8) The United States Senate has not conducted any hearings on these incidents;

(9) There is public concern about allowing

federal agencies to investigate allegations of

impropriety within their own ranks without

congressional oversight to assure accountability at the highest levels of government;

(10) Notwithstanding an official censure of

FBI Agent Larry Potts on January 6, 1994,

relating to his participation in the Idaho incident, the Attorney General of the United

States on May 2, 1995, appointed Agent Potts

to be Deputy Director of the FBI;

(11) It is universally acknowledged that

there can be no possible justification for the

Oklahoma City bombing regardless of what

happened at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, or Waco,

Texas;

(12) Ranking federal officials have supported hearings by the U.S. Senate to dispel

public rumors that the Oklahoma City bombing was planned and carried out by federal

law enforcement officials:

(13) It has been represented, or at least

widely rumored, that the motivation for the

Oklahoma City bombing may have been related to the Waco incident, the dates falling

exactly two years apart; and

(14) A U.S. Senate hearing, or at least setting the date for such a hearing, on Waco

and Ruby Ridge would help to restore public

confidence that there will be full disclosure

of what happened, appropriate congressional

oversight and accountability at the highest

levels of the federal government.

(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense

of the Senate that hearings should be held

before the Senate Judiciary Committee on

countering domestic terrorism in all possible

ways with a hearing on or before June 30,

1995, on actions taken by federal law enforcement agencies in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and

Waco, Texas.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the

thrust of this amendment is clear on

its face; that is to proceed as promptly

as possible, but in a reasonable way, to

have as comprehensive hearings as possible in the U.S. Senate on ways to

combat terrorism.

Pursuant to that general objective,

this Senator scheduled hearings in the

Subcommittee on Terrorism, a series

of four hearings, with a fifth one

planned. The first hearing was scheduled for April 27 on legislation which

had been pending dealing with terrorism, with its focus on transnational

terrorism but also with some focus on

domestic terrorism as it related to FBI

counterterrorism strategies. A second

hearing was scheduled for May 4, with

the subject being technical aspects of

the legislation and also to provide an

opportunity to the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Jewish

Congress, the Irish National Caucus,

and the National Association of ArabAmericans to be heard on the civil liberties issues raised by the legislation.

The third hearing is scheduled for May

11, which is tomorrow, on the subject

of the so-called mayhem manuals on

how to make bombs being transmitted

over the Internet. A fourth hearing is

scheduled for May 18, dealing with

Ruby Ridge, ID, and Waco, TX. There is

a fifth hearing planned, which we may

be able to schedule for May 25, which

would deal with the growth of the militia movement around the United

States.

The hearing scheduled for April 27 became a full committee hearing and proceeded on that basis. Then Senator

HATCH, who is on the floor at the moment—I had notified him that I would

be presenting this sense-of-the-Senate

resolution at about 6:20, as we are

doing at this time—wrote to me saying

that he believed the May 18 hearing

should not be held as scheduled but

ought to be held at some time in the

future with a date not specified.

It is my view, Mr. President, that it

is a matter of urgent public interest

that the hearing be held as promptly as

reasonably possible, but in any event

that a date certain should be set so
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6449

that we do not have the vague and indefinite statement as to when a hearing might be held in the future.

This is a matter which I have been

concerned about since the incident in

Waco, going back to April 1993. I had

requested, shortly after the incident in

Waco, that the Judiciary Committee

hold hearings on the subject. The response which was given at that time

was that hearings ought to be deferred

until internal agency investigations

were concluded. Once that had happened, other matters overtook the Judiciary Committee, and the hearings

have never been held. I pursued the

matter last year, however, by inquiring

of the Justice and Treasury Departments about some of the conclusions

they reached in their internal reports.

There is a great deal of public unrest

as to what happened at Waco. There

has been a report filed pursuant to an

investigation initiated by the Department of the Treasury which was highly

critical of the actions of law enforcement officials there. An internal investigation by the Department of Justice

found little fault, to characterize it, although the report speaks for itself.

The incident at Ruby Ridge drew a

tremendous amount of controversy. A

deputy Federal marshal was killed;

others were killed. There was a Federal

prosecution, and the defendant, Mr.

Randy Weaver, was acquitted of the

most serious charges in that matter.

As specified in the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, there is substantial

public concern that the handling of the

Waco incident may well have been a

triggering factor in the Oklahoma City

bombing, with the Oklahoma City

bombing coming on April 19, 1995, exactly 2 years after the date of the Waco

incident.

Mr. President, it is hard to emphasize

it any more strongly than was said in

the sense-of-the-Senate resolution,

that regardless of what happened at

Waco and regardless of what happened

at Ruby Ridge, there was absolutely no

possible, no conceivable justification

for the bombing in Oklahoma City. But

there are those who say that the triggering factor at the Oklahoma City

bombing was the failure to have appropriate action taken as to what happened at Waco. The media are full of

reports of militias being concerned

about what is happening in the Federal

Government and fears expressed by

many people that the Federal Government will infringe on or abolish the

constitutional rights of citizens, including their rights under the second

amendment.

I believe that it is incumbent upon

the Senate to have hearings on this

matter so that there may be assurances of full disclosure—let the chips

fall where they may—so that there

may be public assurance that the Congress of the United States will exercise

its oversight responsibilities and that,

if we do not act at least to set a hearing date, that this issue will fester and

who knows what the consequences may

be.

I certainly do not want to make any

predictions or have any self-fulfilling

prophecies. But I believe as a U.S. Senator, as chairman of the Terrorism

Subcommittee, as a member of the full

Judiciary Committee, and also as the

chairman of the Senate Intelligence

Committee—which could conceivably

have jurisdiction over these matters,

but I think it is more properly a matter for the Judiciary Committee—that

action be taken so that the Congress of

the United States, the Senate of the

United States, in pursuance of its oversight responsibilities, will do everything that it can to investigate and understand the problem of terrorism and

to take all action which it can to respond. If we sit by idly without taking

as much action as we can to allay the

public concerns which have been expressed, that there has not been appropriate action by the Federal Government to hold accountable the Federal

officials who were involved in Waco,

TX and Ruby Ridge, ID, that certainly

we would be responsible if anything

happens in the interim which might be

attributable, fairly or unfairly, to our

inaction.

There had been reports that the Senate was not acting on Ruby Ridge, ID,

because of concerns that there might

be some interference with the investigation which is being undertaken by

the prosecuting attorney of Boundary

County, ID. The prosecuting attorney

there, Randall Day, is conducting an

inquiry to make a determination as to

whether there ought to be a State prosecution of Federal officials.

Having had some experience in that

particular line and not wanting to

interfere with whatever the prosecuting attorney of Boundary County, ID,

might want to do, I called Mr. Day and

had an extensive conversation with

him. There is no objection on Mr. Day’s

part for Congress to undertake whatever kind of an inquiry we choose to

undertake.

Mr. Day advised me that there is a

report by the Department of Justice

which he has seen, which is not public,

and he has a concern that if that report

comes into the hands of potential witnesses that there may be some problem

with those witnesses. But that would

be unrelated to whatever kind of a

hearing the U.S. Senate might want to

undertake.

Mr. President, the essence of this resolution is that we move ahead with a

hearing on Waco and Idaho, as they

are, at least in the minds of many, related to the problems of terrorism in

the United States. I personally believe

it is totally insufficient to deal with

this matter by talking about hearings,

as Senator HATCH has said, ‘‘in the

near future’’ or ‘‘after the House completes its hearings.’’ That is a framework which is not sufficiently definable or definite, I think, to address this

problem as it should be addressed.

My preference is to proceed with a

hearing on May 18. I would be delighted

to see that hearing in the full committee, as the hearing was held on April

27, after the original notification and

purpose was sent out for a Terrorism

Subcommittee hearing. So let there be

no mistake, a full committee hearing

would accomplish all of the purposes

which I have in mind.

But I feel very strongly that we

should not stand idly by without having the hearing or at least setting a

date for the hearing. That is why the

resolution is specifically calling for a

hearing on or before June 30, which

will at least let everyone out there

know that there will be oversight and

that the Senate will take action to put

all the facts on the table and let the

chips fall where they may, so that we

will be doing everything in our power

to understand terrorism and to curtail

it to the maximum extent that we can.

I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

GRAMS). The Senator from Utah.

AMENDMENT NO. 755 TO AMENDMENT NO. 754

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate

concerning the scheduling of hearings on

Waco and Ruby Ridge in the near future)

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an

amendment to the desk and ask for its

immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. HATCH] proposes an amendment numbered 755 to amendment No. 754.

The amendment is as follows:

Strike all after the first word and insert

the following:

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) The American public is entitled to a

full, comprehensive, and open hearing on the

circumstances surrounding the efforts of federal law enforcement officers, including

agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms, to investigate and effectuate (or

seek to effectuate) the arrest of Mr. David

Koresh and others associated with the

Branch Davidian sect in Waco, Texas;

(2) The American public is entitled to a

full, comprehensive, and open hearing on the

circumstances surrounding the efforts of federal law enforcement officers, including

agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, to

investigate, and effectuate (or seek to effectuate) the arrest of Mr. Randy Weaver and

others associated with Mr. Weaver, in Ruby

Ridge, Idaho;

(3) The Senate has not yet conducted comprehensive hearings on either of these incidents;

(4) The public interest requires full disclosure of these incidents through hearings to

promote public confidence in government;

and

(5) The public’s confidence in government

would be further promoted if the timing of

the hearings takes into consideration the

need for such hearings to be conducted in an

atmosphere of reflection and calm deliberation.

(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense

of the Senate that hearings should be held in
S6450 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 10, 1995

the near future, before the Senate Judiciary

Committee, at a time and under such circumstances as determined by the Chairman,

regarding the actions taken by federal law

enforcement agencies and their representatives in the aforementioned Ruby Ridge and

Waco incidents.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as usual,

I have a lot of respect for the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. I

know that his intentions are honorable. He would like to have these matters examined, and I believe that they

will be examined.

I have to say that there were 12 Federal law enforcement officers and personnel who were murdered in the Oklahoma City tragedy.

I understand that memorial services

for those Federal law enforcement personnel will be held next week. Out of

respect for those who were victims, I

am reluctant to hold hearings on Waco

at this time—although I believe Congress must do so. I have to admit that

nobody has been more concerned about

the Waco incident and the Ruby Ridge

incident than I have been. After all,

both States are in close proximity to

mine. I have a lot of friends in both

States, and there has been a considerable amount of pressure on me to hold

hearings in the last month or so, and

even before that.

I been frank about the fact that I intend to hold Judiciary Committee

hearings. When I heard that the House

was going to start hearings on Waco

and Ruby Ridge, with the agenda that

we have in the Senate, which is a very

heavy Judiciary Committee agenda,

and also with the occurrence at Oklahoma City, I told people that we will

hold hearings but that I would like to

wait at least a reasonable time and

allow the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to do everything they

possibly can to catch, convict, and punish those people who were responsible

for the Oklahoma City bombing. It is

certainly the most tragic terrorist incident in the history of this country.

There are others that I can cite, some

of which even involve my own forebears. As people will recall, the Mormon Church is the only church in the

history of this country where its members had an extermination order

against them, issued by a Governor of

one of these States, which extermination order was rescinded by none

other than one of our colleagues when

he was Governor of that respective

State.

I have to say that we will hold hearings and I intend to hold them in a reasonable period of time. They will be

held, though at the full committee

which is the proper jurisdictional setting, as the full Judiciary Committee

has retained jurisdiction over the Department of Justice. This issue is a Department of Justice oversight issue, so

the full committee should hold these

hearings.

One thing I am very concerned about

is pulling any FBI leader off of the

Oklahoma City case until they wrap up

the investigation. They are making

great headway. I am updated almost

daily by the Director of the FBI, by

people at the Justice Department, people in this administration, and others

who are on top of what is happening

following the Oklahoma City bombing.

And I personally believe we should

allow our law enforcement community

some time—and it may be longer than

the middle of next month or the end of

June—for them to use every power at

their disposal to resolve the investigation and problems in Oklahoma City.

Now, every time we have one of these

hearings—and in this particular case, if

we hold a hearing, a Department of

Justice oversight hearing on Waco and

Ruby Ridge, the FBI Director is going

to have to be there. Mr. Potts, who is

doing an excellent job of running the

investigation on Oklahoma City, is getting accolades from everybody involved

in this particular investigation. Were

we to hold hearings now, Mr. Potts

would have to defer his time from

Oklahoma City to prepare for and testify at our hearings up here. And there

are innumerable other people who may

or may not be involved in hearings, but

who need to be on the job in Oklahoma

City.

That is why I am reticent to calling

these hearings during the month of

May, and I am reticent to have a due

date of June 30, which is what the distinguished Senator has in his sense-ofthe-Senate resolution. I will be happy

to do whatever the Senate says. But it

is my prerogative as chairman of the

Judiciary Committee to determine

when these hearings are going to be

held. I have to say that I hope that the

Senate will take into consideration the

importance of the work that is being

done to try and uncover the problems

and catch those responsible for the

Oklahoma City bombing.

I personally think it is the wrong

thing to do—to try to push hearings

too soon on this matter, under these

circumstances at this time.

Now, perhaps there is reason to criticize the Senator from Utah for not having held hearings before the Oklahoma

City incident, but the Senator from

Utah has been studying these matters

and we have people looking into them.

We do not feel that we are prepared to

hold the hearings at this particular

time, and we certainly were not prepared before the Oklahoma City incident. Indeed, much of our attention in

the Judiciary Committee has been focused on passing the Contract With

America.

I want to share with my colleague

from Pennsylvania that I have many

friends who are very concerned in my

home State and in the State of Idaho,

my neighboring State, and in the State

of Texas, a State I have a great deal of

love and respect for, who are very concerned about the fact that the Waco

and Ruby Ridge matters have been allowed to drag on as long as they have.

When I heard that the House was going

to move forward, I thought to myself,

good, let them do it and then we will

watch that carefully and we will follow

up with hearings, if necessary, to do

the necessary things to cover all of the

matters that were not covered there or

that need to be recovered by Members

of the Senate.

There is no desire on my part to

avoid holding hearings, no desire to ignore these matters. And there is no desire to fight the distinguished Senator

from Pennsylvania on this issue. I will

be happy to hold hearings, as I informed the Senator. There will be full

committee hearings. The distinguished

Senator from Pennsylvania will have

every right to participate as a distinguished member of the committee. He

is a member whom I respect. But it

ought to be done, it seems to me, in a

reasonable and a considered way, giving consideration to the pressures on

everybody, including members of the

Judiciary Committee but, most importantly, on the leadership of the FBI at

this particular time. Perhaps they will

wrap up the Oklahoma City investigation within the next week or so. I

imagine it is going to take more time

than that. But they are on their way,

and they are making great headway

and I do not want to pull anybody off

from that investigation at this particular time.

If we did, you never know whether

some felon or murderer could slip

through and escape or find some way

out, or cover his or her tracks or their

tracks; we just do not know at this

point.

So I encourage my colleague from

Pennsylvania to work with me on a

resolution that will certainly express

the sense of the Senate to hold hearings on this matter but to do so in a

timeframe that I think will bring people together rather than split us apart.

I would like to do that, and I am humble enough to be given advice and to

try and follow it. But in this particular

case, I feel very deeply that there is a

time to hold these hearings and a time

not to. And right now is not the time

to do it. I believe probably next month

will not be the time to do that as well.

I certainly hope that we will hold hearings in a short time and in a reasonable

time from this particular date.

So I commend the Senator from

Pennsylvania for his desire to do this,

for his zeal, and for his interest in trying to resolve wrongs that exist or may

exist in this country with regard to

these two incidents and any other incident. I also believe that if we are patient and wait until we see the outcome of the investigation of the Oklahoma City bombing—if we wait a short

while longer, not only will we help the

FBI and others to get the job done, but

we may be able to uncover some things

that will help us to understand improvements that they are making at

the FBI with regard to terrorism. And

I have no doubt that we will uncover

the truth about whether there is no

conspiracy of the Government against

the American people, or against the
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6451

militia movement, or against individual citizens. We know that there have

been mistakes made. In Waco, it was a

catastrophe; I have said that publicly,

and I cannot remember, but I believe I

have said it on the floor. Ruby Ridge

was one of the great tragedies of our

western lives. I believe that hearings

are going to be appropriate and we will

hold them.

I hope that we will work this out so

that we can work together on it rather

than work apart.

Let me just add that I think it is the

prerogative of the chairman, to determine when hearings within his committee’s jurisdiction will be held. I intend to stand by that position—for a

reasonable time but not a definite

time—until after I see what happens in

Oklahoma City. I do not want to put

extraordinary pressure on the FBI at a

time when they have extraordinary

pressure on them anyway.

Especially with the understanding

that Ruby Ridge and Waco will not go

away, with the understanding that we

are studying those matters now, and

trying to figure out what would make

the most effective and reasonable and

worthwhile hearings on the subject, I

feel we can withhold on hearings. I

have no doubt that the administration

and others with whom my colleague

from Pennsylvania has spoken have informed him that if the Senate chooses

to hold hearings, they will appear. I

cannot, however, believe that they

would take the position that hearings

at this time, in the midst of the largest

criminal investigation in history, are a

priority for them.

I commend my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania for his efforts in trying to move this issue forward. I hope he will work with me on

it. If he will, we will get farther than if

he does not. If he does not work with

me, the Senate will vote on a sense-ofthe-Senate resolution—a nonbinding

resolution. I will determine when these

hearings will be held. I just think it

would be flying in the face of good law

enforcement, flying in the face of reality, flying in the face of the need to

hold hearings which are calm and deliberative, and flying in the face of the

people who have died in Oklahoma

City, who deserve a resolution to their

problem, to hold Waco and Ruby Ridge

hearings at this time.

Now, there are people who have died

in Waco, and people who have died in

Ruby Ridge, both law enforcement people and innocent people in those compounds, and they all deserve to have

this matter fully reviewed. I intend to

do so. But these are matters which require a comprehensive and full review—not a hurried hearing.

I intend to work with every member

of the Judiciary Committee so that

every member can have an opportunity

to be part of the hearings, to have an

opportunity to ask the questions, and

hopefully they can during the time

that will be allotted. It may take more

than one day of hearings. In fact, it

will probably take more than one day.

I have the commitment from the Director of the FBI and from the people

at Justice that they will cooperate in

those hearings. I have discussed with

them the need to hold hearings and I

have made it clear to them that we will

hold them. And they, themselves, have

indicated to me that they would like a

little bit of time to finish the Oklahoma City matter before they have to

divert their efforts and come up here

for full-blown hearings before any committee of the U.S. Senate and, I believe, even the House of Representatives.

They will do it if we demand they do

it. I just believe there is a time to have

them do it. That time is not now, under

the circumstances of Oklahoma City.

With that, I offer to work with the

distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania and see what we can do to resolve

this problem. I stand ready to work

with him.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that Senator

KEMPTHORNE be added as an original

cosponsor of the resolution.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, when

the Senator from Utah talks about patience, it seems to me that the American people have been patient long

enough, since April 19, 1993. There has

been ample time to hold these hearings, long ago.

As I said, I had asked for hearings

shortly after the event itself. Had they

been held in January or February or

March or up to mid-April of this year,

we would not be looking awaiting further action on Oklahoma City. It may

be that we would not have looked at

anything at Oklahoma City at all had

the hearings been held earlier.

I do not know that that is so, but I

think that when there is a request for

patience, I think that there has already been an undue amount of patience on the matter. I do not think

that it is impatient to say, ‘‘Do it by

June 30.’’ That is 41 days from May 10,

as we stand here at the present time.

I discussed these hearings with the

Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh, who

was willing to proceed at this time and

has no objection. The Attorney General

of the United States has publicly stated that she is prepared for hearings.

When the Senator from Utah offers a

resolution that ‘‘hearings should be

held in the near future,’’ my judgment

is that is totally, totally, insufficient.

When he talks about time, and he

says we should wait until we ‘‘catch

and punish those responsible for Oklahoma City’’—punishing them may take

a matter of years. Some murder cases

languish in the courts for up to 20

years. I do not think he necessarily

means that, but if he is talking about

waiting for punishment, even a trial

would take months or more than a

year.

When he talks about awaiting hearings in the House, ‘‘We will wait for the

hearings in the House, if necessary to

see if we proceed,’’ the Senator from

Utah is not even talking in a definite

way about hearings after the House

hearings. We will see after the House

hearings, if necessary. I firmly believe

that the Senate has an independent responsibility. We do not have to get involved in being a bicameral legislature.

We have an independent responsibility

to undertake these hearings.

When paragraph 12 of the resolution

calls to hearings by the U.S. Senate to

dispel public rumors that the ‘‘Oklahoma City bombing was planned and

carried out by Federal law enforcement

officials,’’ that is a statement of the

Director of the FBI himself. When Director Freeh was at lunch yesterday in

the Republican Caucus he talked about

rumors that the Federal Government

itself had caused the bombing in Oklahoma City, and that he welcomed the

hearings to dispel those rumors.

On two occasions the Senator from

Utah has said that it is ‘‘My prerogative’’—‘‘My prerogative to decide when

the hearings would be held.’’ I think

that that is customarily the situation.

When we schedule subcommittee hearings, however, it is the prerogative of

the chairman of the subcommittee to

schedule the hearings.

Or, as I said, it would be conceivable

to have hearings in the Intelligence

Committee which has jurisdiction over

terrorism matters. And a good bit of

what we are considering now in the Judiciary Committee relates to the deportation or aliens, which is clearly a

matter within the jurisdiction of the

Intelligence Committee. As chairman,

I could schedule them there, if we want

to talk about prerogatives, but I have

not done so because I think this is really a matter for terrorism as it is defined in the Terrorism Subcommittee

of the Judiciary Committee. As I say, I

would be glad to see the hearings held

in the full committee, as was the hearing on April 27 after the notice had

been given by the subcommittee for

that hearing.

When we talk about the prerogatives

of Senators, I think that is a little excessive, even if the Senators are chairmen, when we have a matter of public

interest.

I am a little surprised by the statement by the Senator from Utah, again

I wrote this down, that even if the resolution passes, ‘‘I am going to determine when to hold these hearings, unless the Senate orders me.’’

I do not know of any procedure for

having an order or a mandamus, or direction of that sort under our Senate

procedures, but the way we determine

the will of the Senate is to have a

sense-of-the-Senate resolution, which

is what I have offered. It gives a lot of

latitude as to when the hearings will be

held.

So it is a little surprising to hear

that the Senator from Utah is going to

determine when to hold the hearings,
S6452 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 10, 1995

whatever the sense of the Senate may

be, unless the Senate issues some kind

of an order. I know of no such procedure for such an order.

Mr. President, I am very much concerned about the officers, the Federal

officials, who were murdered in Oklahoma City. I think every American is.

I know the area very well.

I went to the University of Oklahoma, which is in Norman, 20 miles

away, and have a lot of friends in Oklahoma City. It is a catastrophe of the

first order. I think that we can best

serve the public interest and best pay

our respect to the victims in Oklahoma

City and best pay our respect to victims of terrorism everywhere if we act

and if we do what we can to clear the

air on any notion which may be current in the country that there has been

a coverup by the Federal Government,

or a failure to act or a failure to look

into what happened in Waco and Ruby

Ridge.

I think this resolution is a very reasonable approach to the issue, deferring from the date of May 18, which the

subcommittee has set, and deferring to

the full committee. It is not a matter

of who conducts the hearings. Let the

full committee do it. But let us do it

with reasonable promptness.

I think it is important that we not

talk about personal Senatorial prerogatives or about being ordered to do

something, not talk about conduct

them ‘‘if necessary,’’ after the House

holds it hearings, or not talk about the

vagaries of the near future. We need to

set a time when at least we will let all

Americans know we are going to move

ahead, we are not stonewalling, and although we are not having the hearing

on May 18, we will at least set a date

that will give public assurance—that

we will give the public assurance that

we will let the chips fall where they

may and there will be accountability in

America regardless of how high the officials may be.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I strongly

support the call for hearings into the

Federal Government’s handling of

standoffs in Naples, ID and Waco, TX.

Some of my colleagues may remember I have been pushing for many

months to get the Government to tell

what it knows about the incident in

my home State—often referred to as

Ruby Ridge. I asked for an investigation of the incident, which was done; I

pressed for release of the reports of

that investigation, which is presently

awaiting the consent of the local Idaho

prosecutor; and in January, I asked for

hearings in the Senate.

Government agents have already

been disciplined for acts and failures to

act at Ruby Ridge. Just a few weeks

ago, the Deputy Attorney General released a list of problems that she

thinks occurred there and asked the

heads of three agencies to report how

they are addressing these problems.

Yet there still has not been any public accounting as to what happened,

nor answers to the questions that continue to multiply.

Mr. President, the public has a right

to know. The Senate should hold hearings into this matter and into the handling of the Waco standoff, as well.

There are some who have suggested

that now is not the time for these hearings. They say we should wait until

Oklahoma City recovers, or until the

polls show a more favorable political

climate in the country, or some other

goal is met.

At the same time, we have been hearing a lot in the press and even in this

Chamber about the public’s so-called

‘‘paranoia’’—fear and mistrust of the

Federal Government that is being labeled as irrational.

I should not need to remind my colleagues: fear breeds in ignorance. Mistrust is fueled by rumor. The worst

thing this Congress could do to improve the situation would be to put

these issues on the shelf or try to drive

public discussion underground.

That is not the way a responsive, and

responsible, representative body should

operate. We depend upon our State and

Federal authorities to maintain order

and keep the peace, and we trust they

will do so in a way that is consistent

with the law and in keeping with the

trust we have placed in them. Sometimes a line is crossed that runs the

risk of breaking the trust and confidence Americans have place in our

Federal law enforcement community.

Many across America fear such a line

was crossed at Waco and at Ruby

Ridge. That fear has only increased,

not decreased, as the days and months

have passed without an adequate Congressional response.

Surely everyone in this Congress

would agree that it would be helpful to

have answers to these questions before

we respond to Federal law enforcement

requests for greater powers and resources. Hearings in this area may well

point out areas where additional help

is needed; conversely, they may point

out areas where additional powers may

contribute to the potential for abuse.

And if Congress deserves to know the

answers to these questions before making such an important policy determination, surely the public also deserves it.

Mr. President, it serves neither the

law enforcement community nor the

interests of civil liberties or delay addressing these incidents. We should

hold hearings and seek answers to the

legitimate questions that have been

raised—and we should do it now, rather

than allow the cancer of suspicion and

mistrust to grow.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask

for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s amendment is currently not

pending for those purposes. It takes

unanimous consent to order the yeas

and nays on your amendment, Senator.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that my amendment be considered as a freestanding

resolution which, as I understand from

the Parliamentarian, is permissible.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It does

take unanimous consent.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent it be considered as a freestanding

resolution.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my

capacity as a Senator from Minnesota,

and acting as Chair, I do object.

Objection is heard.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection that it be in order to order

the yeas and nays at this time?

Is there a sufficient second?

There is clearly not a sufficient second.

Mr. SPECTER. All Senators on the

floor are voting in favor of the yeas

and nays.

Come on now, Mr. President, I have

seen the yeas and nays ordered with

one Senator on the floor asking for the

yeas and nays constituting a sufficient

second.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. According to the Parliamentarian, a minimum of 11 Senators need to be on the

floor for a sufficient second.

Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Will the Parliamentarian represent that the yeas

and nays have not been ordered in any

case he has seen where fewer than 11

Members of the Senate have asked for

the yeas and nays?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator,

there is not a record kept of that, according to the Parliamentarian. So the

information would not be available.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask for his best

recollection but not necessarily a

record, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection? Without objection, so ordered.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, 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. SPECTER. 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send

CLOTURE MOTION

fa motion to invoke cloture on the

pending matter to the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented

under rule XXII, the Chair directs the

clerk to read the motion.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

CLOTURE MOTION

We the undersigned Senators in accordance

with the provisions of rule XXII of the

Standing Rules of the Senate do hereby