```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 82 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6771-S6784]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

 ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE WHITEWATER 
                  DEVELOPMENT CORP. AND OTHER MATTERS

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I send the resolution to the desk on 
behalf of myself and Senator Dole--and I know others would like to 
join--and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 120) establishing a special committee 
     administered by the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs to conduct an investigation involving Whitewater 
     Development Corp., Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan 
     Association, Capital Management Services, Inc., the Arkansas 
     Development Finance authority, and other related matters.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the resolution?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
resolution.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, Whitewater is a very serious matter. Some 
questions raised by Whitewater go to the very heart of our democratic 
system of government. We must determine whether the public trust has 
been abused. We must ascertain whether purely private interests have 
been placed above the public trust. The American people have a right to 
know the full facts about Whitewater and related matters.
  After the Banking Committee's hearings last year, many important 
questions still remain. The American people have a right and a need to 
know the answers to these questions.
  Congress has the responsibility to serve as the public's watchdog. We 
would be derelict in our duties if we did not pursue these Whitewater 
questions. The Senate must proceed in an evenhanded, impartial, and 
thorough manner. We have a constitutional responsibility to resolve 
these issues.
  Mr. President, we now bring before the Senate a resolution that 
authorizes a special committee administered by the Banking Committee to 
continue the Whitewater inquiry that was started but not completed 
during the last Congress.
  I thank my distinguished colleague, Senator Sarbanes, for his hard 
work and cooperation in the preparation of this resolution. We have 
jointly prepared a resolution that is balanced and fair and that will 
allow the special committee to search for the truth. I am confident 
that Senator Sarbanes and I will continue the Banking Committee's 
bipartisan approach to the Whitewater matter.
  Mr. President, our pursuit of these questions must be and will be 
fair, straightforward, and responsible. The American people expect and 
deserve a thorough inquiry committed to the pursuit of truth. That is 
the American way.
  Last summer, the Banking Committee met these vigorous requirements. 
Our examination of the Whitewater matter was impartial, balanced, and 
thorough. That is our goal in this Congress. I am confident that we 
will meet these goals.
  During last summer's hearings, many facts were uncovered. We learned 
that certain top administration officials were not fully candid and 
forthcoming with the Congress. That is an undisputed fact. The public 
has a right to expect more from those in positions of trust. We also 
learned that senior Treasury Department and Clinton White House 
officials mishandled confidential law enforcement information 
concerning Madison Guaranty. That is another undisputed fact. Madison 
is now defunct; it is a defunct S&L at the heart of the Whitewater 
matter. The failure of this Arkansas S&L eventually cost American 
taxpayers more than $47 million.
  Mr. President, the American people have a right to know the answers 
to [[Page S6772]] many serious questions still remaining about 
Whitewater and related matters. We have a constitutional obligation to 
seek the answers to these questions. That is why I am offering this 
resolution today.
  Now I will briefly outline some of the matters that this resolution 
authorizes the special committee to investigate. We will begin with the 
handling of the papers in deputy White House counsel Vince Foster's 
office following his death. Who searched Mr. Foster's office on the 
night of his death? What were they looking for? What happened to Mr. 
Foster's papers? Were any papers lost or destroyed? And who authorized 
the transfer of Mr. Foster's Whitewater file to a closet in the First 
Family's residence? The public has a right to the answers to these 
questions.
  Mr. President, this resolution encourages the special committee to 
coordinate its activities with those of the independent counsel, 
Kenneth Starr. Senator Sarbanes and I have met with the independent 
counsel. Judge Starr has indicated to us that he has no objection to 
the special committee's plan to inquire into the handling of Mr. 
Foster's papers. Senator Sarbanes and I are committed to coordinating 
the committee's activities with those of the special counsel.
  This resolution authorizes the special committee to pursue answers to 
other questions raised during the Banking Committee's hearings last 
year.
  We will explore the scope and impact of the improper dissemination of 
confidential law enforcement information concerning Madison Guaranty. 
How widely did the Clinton administration officials communicate this 
confidential information? Did any high-ranking officials inform targets 
of criminal investigations? If so, did this impact any ongoing 
investigations? The public has a right to know the answers to these 
questions.
  The special committee will also examine whether there were any 
improper contacts between the Clinton White House and the Justice 
Department regarding Madison Guaranty.
  We know that Paula Casey, the U.S. attorney in Little Rock, declined 
to pursue criminal referrals involving Madison. That is an undisputed 
fact. We also know that Webster Hubbell, who has pleaded guilty to mail 
fraud and tax evasion, was the No. 3 official at the Justice Department 
at this critical time. This is another undisputed fact.
  The committee will ascertain whether Mr. Hubbell contacted Paula 
Casey about Madison. And who else, if anyone, knew about these contacts 
with the U.S. attorney. The public has the right to know.
  Mr. President, this resolution authorizes the special committee to 
explore whether the Resolution Trust Corporation and other officials in 
Washington tried to interfere improperly with RTC staff in Kansas City 
responsible for investigating wrongdoing at Madison. If such 
interference occurred, who authorized it, and why? The public deserves 
answers to these questions.
  During last summer's hearings, the Banking Committee learned that the 
Treasury inspector general furnished the Clinton White House, at the 
White House counsel's request, transcripts of the inspector general's 
depositions. That is an undisputed fact.
  The committee will now look into whether these deposition transcripts 
were used to coach administration witnesses before they appeared in 
front of the committee. That would be wrong. The public has a right to 
know if it happened.
  All of these matters that I have discussed so far involve events that 
occurred after January 1993 when President Clinton took office. There 
are also serious questions regarding events that occurred in Arkansas 
in the 1980's when President Clinton was Governor. This resolution also 
authorizes the special committee to examine these matters. Some of 
these Arkansas matters are complex and will require the committee's 
close review of many thousands of pages of documents.
  We will review the operations and regulations of Madison Guaranty. 
Did James McDougal, Madison's chairman and Governor Clinton's business 
partner, improperly divert Madison's funds to himself and others? Did 
any of this money find its way into the White House real estate project 
in which McDougal and Governor Clinton were partners? Did McDougal 
misuse Madison funds to cover any losses the First Family suffered on 
their Whitewater investment? The public has a right to know the answers 
to these questions.
  Mr. President, the resolution further authorizes the special 
committee to examine the Rose law firm's representation of both Madison 
and RTC, and senior partners at the Rose law firm, including Larry 
Rodham Clinton, Webster Hubbell, and Vince Foster. The committee must 
ascertain whether the Rose law firm properly handled the RTC civil 
claims concerning Madison.
  Did the firm have a conflict of interest, and did American taxpayers 
lose money in the process?
  We will also examine Capital Management Services and its president, 
David Hale, a former Arkansas judge and Clinton appointee. Hale has 
publicly charged that the President pressured him to make Small 
Business Administration loans that were used to prop up Madison.
  Did this happen? Did Hale also make improper Small Business 
Administration loans to current Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker?
  Then there is the matter of the financing of the 1990 Arkansas 
gubernatorial campaign. We now know that the president of the Perry 
County Bank, Neal Ainley, has pleaded guilty to violating Federal laws 
in connection with the handling of certain large cash transactions for 
the Clinton campaign. Ainley claims he did so at the direction of 
campaign officials. The public has a right to know who authorized this 
activity and why.
  Mr. President, this resolution will authorize the special committee 
to examine these and related matters. We will take every reasonable 
step to complete this inquiry promptly. We hope that the administration 
cooperates with us in this regard. But we also intend to be thorough 
and comprehensive.
  This resolution provides $950,000 to fund the special committee 
through February 29, 1996. If additional money is needed, the special 
committee will make a recommendation not later than January 15, 1996, 
and the majority and minority will meet to determine the time for any 
vote.
  Mr. President, we expect to hold public hearings into the handling of 
the papers of Vince Foster's office in late June or early July. We will 
continue our inquiry by subject matter until it is completed. In doing 
so, we will make every effort not to interfere with the independent 
counsel's criminal investigation.
  Mr. President, the American people deserve to know the full facts 
about Whitewater and related matters. As I said at the outset, we will 
conduct this inquiry in a fair, evenhanded, and impartial manner.
  That is what the American people want, expect, and deserve. I urge 
the approval of this resolution.
  I see that my distinguished colleague and ranking member, Senator 
Sarbanes, is here. We have allocated up to 2 hours, equally divided.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, may I ask what the time situation is?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). There are 2 hours, of which 
15 minutes has already been used.
  Mr. SARBANES. There is an hour now remaining on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, it is not my intention to use the entire hour. I 
hope at some point both sides might be able to yield back time and 
proceed to final consideration of the resolution.
  Let me say at the outset that the resolution we are considering 
today, which authorizes a special committee to be administered by the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, is really a carrying 
out of resolutions that were adopted last year by this body. I think it 
is important to consider this resolution in the context of those 
resolutions--actions taken by the Senate last year.
  On March 17, 1994, a little over a year ago, the Senate adopted a 
resolution by a vote of 98-0 expressing the sense of the Senate that 
hearings should be held on all matters relating to Madison, to 
Whitewater, and to Capital Management.
  Then, to carry out that resolution, at least in part, on June 21 of 
last year, [[Page S6773]] the Senate agreed to Senate Resolution 229, 
which authorized hearings to be held into certain areas. Those hearings 
were done last summer. We had 6 days of public hearings. We had 
extensive analysis of documents that were provided to the inquiry 
committee in order to enable it to carry out its responsibilities.
  Now, one of the things that was authorized to be looked into by the 
June 21 resolution was the handling of the Foster documents. That was 
later deferred, in response to a request from the independent counsel 
who contacted the committee and indicated that, given the nature of his 
inquiry, it would be preferable if the Committee did not go ahead with 
that hearing. Accordingly, we held off.
  Now the distinguished chairman has indicated that it would be the 
first item which will be considered in the hearings that will now take 
place under the resolution we are considering here today.
  So this resolution is in effect a continuation of our earlier work. 
It authorizes the completion of work specified in last year's 
resolution, as well as matters developed during and arising out of the 
hearings that were held last summer, and also a number of matters my 
colleague has enumerated that carry forth on the sense-of-the-Senate 
commitment last year to investigate all matters pertaining to Madison.
  I want to go through some other aspects of this resolution, just to 
lay them out on the record. The chairman of the Banking Committee, 
Senator D'Amato, has gone through a number of matters that have been 
provided for in this resolution to be examined by the special 
committee. The special committee, administered by the Banking 
Committee, shall consist of all of the members of the Banking Committee 
plus two members added from the Judiciary Committee. The chairman and 
ranking members of the Committee on the Judiciary, or their designees, 
will join with the members of the Banking Committee to constitute the 
special committee which will be administered by the Banking Committee. 
So it is essentially--or primarily, let me say--a Banking Committee 
activity, since most of the areas to be examined clearly fall under the 
jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. But we did add from the 
Judiciary Committee last year. A member came on in order to help carry 
out the inquiry. And there are some matters that are contained in the 
resolution, to be examined that, it could well be argued, are under the 
jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. So, to bring that together, we 
are bringing on two members from the Judiciary Committee, the chairman 
and ranking member or their designees. They will be designating someone 
else to handle this responsibility if they choose to do so, and I do 
not know at this point what Chairman Hatch and ranking member Biden 
intend to do in that regard. But obviously we will abide by their 
decision.
  We have also provided in the resolution which is now before us, and 
which shortly will be adopted, for rules and procedures of this 
committee which essentially will be the rules and procedures of the 
Senate, the Standing Rules of the Senate, and the rules of procedure of 
the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. That is, in 
effect, the rules framework, procedural framework within which we will 
operate. There are in the resolution sections that cover aspects of the 
process that the special committee will follow; these are matters it 
was deemed important that we spell out in the resolution how they were 
going to be dealt with. Those involve questions of subpoena powers, 
questions of how the hearings will be conducted--important questions 
about immunity. I want to underscore that because that is a matter we 
have had to address before.
  We provide that to grant a witness immunity--I want to read this 
section because it is an important matter. The special committee has 
the power: ``To grant a witness immunity under section 6002 and 6005'' 
of title 18, United States Code, ``provided that the independent 
counsel has not informed the special committee in writing that 
immunizing the witness would interfere with the ability of the 
independent counsel successfully to prosecute criminal violations.''
  We also provide for staffing of the committee. There is power to 
appoint special committee staff including consultants, assistance from 
the Senate legal counsel, assistance from the Comptroller General. 
There is a provision whereby the committee can draw on other Government 
agencies, Government personnel, and on other congressional staff. And 
we hope, through a combination of all of these sources, that we will 
have an adequate staff to carry out a proper inquiry and investigation.
  There is also, of course, special provision for the protection of 
confidential information, since we will be interacting with the 
independent counsel and others and we think it is important to have 
such provisions.
  Finally, the money asked for in this resolution, just under $1 
million, $950,000, is to cover the salaries and other expenses of the 
special committee carrying out this inquiry, beginning on the date of 
the adoption of this resolution--I assume today--and ending February 
29, 1996.
  If it is judged that additional money is needed, that the inquiry 
needs to go forward and additional money is required in order to fund 
it, the special committee will recommend that. Of course there will 
have to be a further vote for the providing of additional moneys to the 
special committee.
  Mr. President, let me just make a couple of further, more general 
observations. I have very quickly gone through the resolution and I 
think most of it is straightforward. I think Members of the Senate upon 
reviewing it will conclude that is the case. Many of the provisions are 
what one might call boilerplate for such an inquiry, and track previous 
provisions that have been used in various Senate resolutions 
establishing committees to carry out inquiries or investigations of the 
sort that is being authorized here.
  I listened to the chairman with great interest and I was particularly 
encouraged by his very strong statement of the need to conduct 
impartial, balanced and thorough hearings, which is exactly what I 
think needs to be done. There are a lot of allegations that are 
swirling around and there are a lot of questions that are being raised. 
We see them from time to time raised in the press and in the media. 
And, of course, one could sit around all day long and conjure up one 
question after another. It is not difficult, it is very easy. It is not 
difficult just simply to say, ``Well, suppose this happened or suppose 
that happened; or if this or if that.'' Of course, one of the purposes 
of these hearings is to get a good, tough-minded examination of these 
various allegations to see if there is anything to them. It needs to be 
appreciated, that it is very easy to make the allegations. Whether the 
allegations are in fact substantiated by the facts is a tougher 
question to determine, and that does require an impartial, balanced and 
thorough hearing. In fact, the President himself has said the best way 
to address these matters is to look at the facts candidly, and that is 
what I very much hope and expect that this committee will be able to 
do.
  I do think last summer we conducted hearings that were perceived by 
all as being thorough and fair and impartial. We went at it, in effect, 
to find out what the facts were, to ascertain the truth. I think we 
pressed that issue in a resolute manner, and I would expect the special 
committee will do so in the case that is--in the instance that is 
before us.
  These hearings will make an effort to get the facts out fully and 
impartially. We anticipate that the administration will cooperate with 
this effort. They certainly have indicated that is what they intend to 
do. Last year they made every document available that was requested, as 
I recall. I think I am correct in that statement. Now the time has come 
to move forward, to begin our hearings, to begin, in effect, to examine 
these various questions and allegations and ascertain with respect to 
each of them whether there is any factual grounding behind them or 
whether they simply raise questions that people can ask. And that, of 
course, is the purpose of the inquiry which we will be undertaking here 
with this provision of $950,000 to carry out this investigation in the 
period between now and February 29. The resolution provides that the 
special committee shall make every reasonable effort to complete, 
[[Page S6774]] not later than February 1, 1996, the investigation, 
study, and hearings authorized by section 1.
  This resolution does provide the basis for carrying out a full and 
proper, impartial, and balanced hearing.
  I think our challenge now is to move ahead in carrying out our 
responsibilities in the special committee. It is a heavy burden to add 
to the responsibilities that Members already have but is one that 
obviously we are charged with responding to.
  As I said, we adopted resolutions last year addressing this matter. 
This, in effect, carries forward on those resolutions. It is a 
continuation, in effect, of that work. But I hope that if we apply 
ourselves to it over the coming months, we will be able to work through 
all of these matters and, in effect, bring this issue to closure in the 
sense that the Members of the Senate and the American people know that 
the various questions have been raised and thoroughly examined, that it 
has been done with a great deal of balance and fairness and 
impartiality, and that these are what the facts are as a consequence of 
that investigation and inquiry.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. Will time be 
equally charged?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Only by unanimous consent.
  Mr. SARBANES. I ask unanimous consent to put in a quorum call and 
that the time be equally charged to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, it is so 
ordered. The time will be charged to both sides equally.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from North 
Carolina?
  Mr. D'AMATO. I yield to the Senator from North Carolina whatever time 
he needs, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Madam President, I want to begin my remarks by saying 
that I plan to enthusiastically support the Whitewater resolution.
  I think it is a good resolution. I am concerned, however, that a few 
key things have been left out of it. Nevertheless, I think that before 
the hearings are over, we will wind up working them in.
  Nothing in this resolution allows us to probe the circumstances 
surrounding the death of Vince Foster. When we held the hearings last 
year in the Senate, a key witness, Captain Hume, simply did not show up 
at the hearings the day he was supposed to be there. The hearings had 
been planned for months. Captain Hume was out of town that day. He was 
supposed to be there. Our ranking member at the time demanded that they 
bring him back for several days. But they did not bring him back. The 
hearings adjourned and we never heard from him. I do not think this was 
a thorough airing of the issues, and I think we need to do it again.
  I understand that Mr. Starr is looking at this again. I hope that he 
will, given the miserable job that Mr. Fiske did of investigating.
  Madam President, the Congress also needs to probe the $100,000 profit 
in the commodities market that came to Mrs. Clinton courtesy of Red 
Bond and Jim Blair, the general counsel of Tyson Foods. This is not 
mentioned in the resolution, and it should be.
  Just recently, I discovered that a friend of the Clintons, Barbara 
Holum, was conveniently installed as acting head of the CFTC before the 
story of Mrs. Clinton's commodity trades broke.
  There are many confusing issues. Now we find that Red Bond, who did 
the commodity trading, who is practically bankrupt, was able to pay off 
$7 million in back taxes just 2 months before the commodity trading 
story became public. To me, the evidence on this is just too much to 
believe that all of this is a coincidence.
  Madam President, this resolution does not allow us to probe the 
failure of First American Savings & Loan in Illinois.
  If you can believe this, Vince Foster and Mrs. Clinton were hired by 
the Federal Government to sue Dan Lasater. The same Dan Lasater that 
was a close friend of the Clintons. That is right, Mrs. Clinton was 
hired by the Federal Government to sue Dan Lasater in connection with 
the failure of First American Savings & Loan in Illinois. Mrs. Clinton 
participated in the decision to lower the amount of money the 
Government would recover from Dan Lasater from $3.3 million to 
$200,000, and we do not know yet what percentage of that went to her as 
attorney's fee because the records were sealed.
  The Government spent over $100 billion to resolve the savings and 
loan crisis. With crooks like Dan Lasater involved and with Mrs. 
Clinton acting on behalf of the taxpayers, suing a friend, it is no 
wonder the cost was so high.
  I want to again state my strong support--and I say this not 
necessarily in the language as we often use in the Senate--but of my 
good friend, fellow member of the Banking Committee and our chairman, 
Alfonse D'Amato. He truly is a good friend, and he has given us the 
leadership we need.
  I hope, and I know that before this hearing is over, under his 
leadership, we will have probed all aspects of Whitewater in a fair 
manner so that the American people understand what happened, when it 
happened, and who knew it when it happened. I look forward to the 
hearings.
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I know of my good friend, Senator 
Faircloth's concern that there be ample scope to look into all of the 
matters that are relevant, and I share that concern. I think that this 
resolution very fairly embodies us with the authority--and I would 
refer to page 4.
  As my friend raises, we did not attempt to spell out every single 
area. Page 4, line 12, says:

       Subsection 3. To conduct an investigation and public 
     hearings into and study all matters that have any tendency to 
     reveal the full facts about . . .

  Then we go through all of the various areas. There are other Senators 
who are going to speak, but I believe it is important to summarize 
those areas. Senator Sarbanes has. The fact is that we include the 
ability to look into the bond underwriting contracts between the 
Arkansas Development Finance Authority and Lasater & Co., and all of 
those activities to which my friend has referred. But there must be a 
connection, and if there is a connection, well, then, we will look into 
the area, and I will touch on these areas in more detail before our 
time is up.
  So I share my friend's concern. This will be thorough. It will be 
thoughtful. And when subpoenas are issued--and I must tell you that the 
specific instance that he raises is troubling, that of a witness who 
failed to respond to a subpoena, especially one who works for the 
Government, who was given notice, and who gave the committee, either 
the majority or the minority or our staff, no reason to believe that he 
would not be there. That will not be tolerated. If we run into a 
situation like that, I can assure you, and I know that the ranking 
member shares this same concern, we want people to respond to 
subpoenas. We will not issue them frivolously.
  I think in that case a subpoena might not have even been issued 
because we assumed that he was going to be there. So it is not a bad 
track record to have almost everybody respond, including even those who 
were not subpoenaed. But, we will remain vigilant in seeking this kind 
of cooperation.
  I see that Senator Bond is in the Chamber, and he is on the Banking 
Committee and was an integral part of last year's hearings, and I yield 
to him 10 minutes from my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I thank my good friend, my colleague from 
New York.
  Madam President, as we begin the debate on this resolution 
authorizing a second round of Whitewater hearings, I thought it would 
be helpful to review why the Senate and the committee need these issues 
to be aired. [[Page S6775]] 
  I wish to summarize for my colleagues some points that are 
particularly important to me and have come from my experience with the 
first round of hearings and also with the hearing back in February 
where we asked the questions that began some of the process in finding 
out what has gone on in the administration.
  As most of the Nation now knows, Madison Guaranty was a Little Rock 
savings and loan which went belly-up at the cost of nearly $50 million, 
and was owned by James McDougal--the business partner of the Clintons' 
in the Whitewater real estate deal.
  Madison Guaranty was the classic S&L story of insider dealing, 
reckless loan policies and ultimate failure with the U.S. taxpayers 
picking up the tab. It is a part of the $105 billion cost of the S&L 
debacle, and in that way is a story repeated in many communities around 
the country.
  But one part of this case has made it famous--many of its borrowers, 
directors, and counsel were prominent figures in Arkansas politics and 
government.
  The tangled web of Madison, Jim McDougal, and the Clintons has led to 
two sets of criminal referrals, an ongoing civil liability 
investigation by the RTC, a potential conflict of interest case for the 
First Lady's former law firm, a conviction of a Little Rock judge who 
improperly loaned SBA money to McDougal and Whitewater, several other 
recent guilty plea agreements and an ongoing investigation by 
independent counsel Starr.
  Since these issues first came to light, I have said over and over 
that the American people have a right to know what happened to the 
millions of dollars lost, and we, in Congress, must fulfill our 
obligation and get the facts out into the open.
  Last year the Senate was engaged in a lengthy struggle over what 
questions and areas the Banking Committee would be allowed to address 
as Whitewater--Madison hearings begin. Unfortunately, the Democratic 
leadership at that time did everything in their power to limit the 
scope of the hearings, and to block our efforts to get at the truth--
particularly as it relates to what Clinton administration officials 
have done to control or interfere with investigations.
  The questions we asked last year remain as relevant today as they did 
last May:
  Did Whitewater Development Corp. benefit from taxpayers insuring of 
Madison Guaranty deposits?
  Did any of Madison's federally insured funds go to benefit the 
Clinton campaigns?
  Were the bank regulatory agencies operating in an impartial and 
independent manner as they handled Madison Guaranty?
  How did the Resolution Trust Corporation handle the criminal 
referrals on Madison--both under the Bush administration as well as the 
Clinton administration?
  How did the Resolution Trust Corporation and the FDIC handle 
potential civil claims against Madison--both under the Bush 
administration as well as the Clinton administration?
  How did the Department of Justice handle the RTC criminal referrals 
it received, again both under the Bush administration and the Clinton 
administration?
  What were the sources of funding and lending practices of Capital 
Management Services, and how did the SBA regulate and supervise it, 
particularly as it related to loans to Susan McDougal and her company, 
Master Marketing.
  Full hearings on the Whitewater-Madison affair are needed so that all 
these questions can be fairly asked and answered. What happened in 
Arkansas, what happened in the 1992 Clinton campaign in their efforts 
to keep the lid on about the actions in Arkansas, and what has the 
administration done to manage the Madison-Whitewater issues since they 
took office.
  If we are to finally get to the bottom of the story as to what 
happened with the criminal referrals, I believe that we need to start 
with the first criminal referral on Madison Guaranty which was already 
in the Justice Department awaiting action when the Clinton 
administration took office.
  Remember, Madison Guaranty had failed in 1989 and had been first 
taken over by the FDIC, and then in August 1989 when Congress passed 
the S&L bailout bill the newly created RTC took over Madison.
  The RTC's mission was to close down failed thrifts, sell the assets, 
pay off the depositors and then seek out criminal or civil wrongdoing 
that may have occurred. If they found criminal wrongdoing--fraud, or 
attempts to enrich, they referred their findings to the Department of 
Justice for further action.
  If they found civil wrongdoing--for example, law firms or accounting 
firms who helped institutions stay open by providing misleading, 
incomplete or incorrect information to regulators or the S&L's board 
members--the RTC would pursue those cases.
  Thus from August 1989 the RTC had Madison Guaranty on its plate. No 
action was taken by the RTC on potential civil claims, but several 
criminal referrals were developed. In one case Jim McDougal and two 
others were accused of fraud, but were acquitted, in another case a 
board member plead guilty to falsifying documents.
  Then came March 1992 when the New York Times reported a series of 
potential misdealings in Madison Guaranty and spurred the RTC to take 
another look at the institution. This second look caused the first 
criminal referral to be sent to Justice in the fall of 1992, and it was 
this referral which awaited final action when the Clinton 
administration came into office in January 1993.
  I give this brief history in order to put things into perspective. 
Last year, Senator Specter and I offered amendments to the Whitewater 
Committee resolution which would have allowed the Banking Committee to 
pick up story at this point, and follow the trail of the first referral 
as it made its way through the Government, and then to follow the trail 
of the second referral as it was developed throughout 1993, up to and 
including the improper contacts by Treasury officials with White House 
staff. This of course would entail questioning the RTC officials 
involved, Justice Department officials involved, as well as Treasury 
and White House staff.
  Because we must remember that on the day that the Clinton 
administration officials walked in the door on January 21, 1993, a 
criminal referral on Madison Guaranty was sitting in the Department of 
Justice.
  I for one still want to know:
  How did the Department of Justice handle this referral?
  Was the White House informed and if so when and by whom?
  Who in Justice was assigned to monitor the Madison case, and what 
actions did they take?
  And then, as we know now, just months after taking office, a second 
set of referrals was being developed--and it too was sent off to the 
Clinton Justice Department by RTC officials in Kansas City.
  I want to know why the RTC decided to stay on the case. What happened 
to get a series of RTC officials reassigned and taken off the case? Is 
there a pattern of special treatment for politically sensitive cases? 
And again, how did the Department of Justice handle the second 
referral?
  I want to know why did the Clinton appointed Little Rock U.S. 
attorney Paula Casey, along with Webb Hubbell, delay their recusals 
until after the decision not to prosecute Madison was made? I also want 
to know the details about Paula Casey and Webb Hubbell's phone contacts 
during the period when Casey was deciding what to do with the 
referrals, and did either one of them have any contact with the White 
House on the referrals at any time?
  And now, just in the past weeks we have seen reported by the 
Associated Press that:

       Preparing for televised Whitewater hearings last summer, 
     White House attorneys consulted confidential depositions from 
     a Treasury investigation in an effort to reconcile differing 
     accounts of administration officials who were about to 
     testify.
       Former White House counsel Lloyd Cutler acknowledged this 
     week that the depositions were used to identify discrepancies 
     in the recollections of presidential aides before the 
     congressional hearings.
       White House lawyers would then ``confront'' the aides with 
     information they had obtained from the depositions without 
     revealing the sources, he told The Associated Press.
       ``If we found inconsistencies, we would go back to White 
     House officials, and go back over testimony they gave us,'' 
     Cutler explained. ``and then we would say `we have heard 
     other reports.'''

  [[Page S6776]] This of course brings into play several other issues 
which I have been following since the close of the hearings last 
August. As we know now, confidential information was again turned over 
by Treasury to the White House--this time under the guise of a Treasury 
Department inspector general's investigation.
  This calls into question not only the independence of the IG, but 
also the willingness of this administration to politicize what is 
supposed to be an internal watchdog.
  It also calls into question the entire testimony offered by White 
House officials before the Senate Banking Committee--as they were given 
another heads up in order to best tailor their testimony to help the 
boss.
  Last November I wrote to then Chairman Riegle and ranking member 
D'Amato about what I had discovered. In my letter I stated:

       As you know, over these past several months I have 
     continued my efforts to resolve outstanding questions which 
     were raised during the Banking Committee's Whitewater 
     hearings. Initially I became concerned upon discovering 
     during our hearings that the Treasury Inspector General had 
     turned over to the White House--at Lloyd Cutler's specific 
     request--transcripts of all the testimony taken by the 
     investigators a full week before the Office of Government 
     Ethics (OGE) report was made public. At the time we learned 
     this, several former Inspectors General expressed amazement 
     at this unprecedented action. However, no further review of 
     the incident was undertaken.
       During my investigation of this disclosure, I discovered 
     that not only were the documents released to the White House 
     at the specific request of White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler, 
     but, in doing so, the Treasury turned over confidential RTC 
     information to the White House.
       On Saturday, July 23, 1994, the Department of the Treasury 
     gave the White House all of the sworn depositions of 
     Treasury, White House, and RTC personnel. These depositions 
     were unedited.
       According to the RTC, it was not until July 26 or 27 that 
     the RTC became aware of the fact that RTC depositions had 
     been provided to the White House.
       July 26, after reviewing the information provided by the 
     Treasury I.G., Lloyd Cutler testified before the House 
     Banking Committee.
       July 28 and 29, Counsel to the RTC Inspector General 
     Patricia Black redacted all the Treasury, RTC, and White 
     House depositions in order to remove confidential RTC 
     information.
       July 31 the OGE report, with edited testimony, was provided 
     to Congress and subsequently made public.
       Given that the focus of our hearings this past August was 
     the improper transmittal of confidential information from the 
     RTC to the White House regarding Madison Guaranty and the 
     Clintons, I must tell you I am appalled that the same 
     Treasury Department, acting under specific direction from 
     Secretary Bentsen, would again provide nonpublic information 
     about the Madison Guaranty case directly to the White House.
       In addition, I found it extraordinary that the White House, 
     which was itself under investigation, would be given 
     nonpublic information
      prior to Congressional hearings--particularly when Congress 
     itself was not given the information.

  And now of course we have discovered that Mr. Cutler and others used 
this information not only to assist in the drafting of Mr. Cutler's 
testimony--but to help White House staff with the inconsistencies in 
their own stories.
  I find this entire episode just another example of the extraordinary 
lengths the White House was willing to go to keep the facts from 
Congress, keep the facts from the American people, and ultimately to 
protect the administration.
  As I have said on this floor before, breaching the public trust is as 
serious an offense as committing a crime, or being found liable for 
financial penalties. Governments in free societies have a fundamental 
pact with the governed. In exchange for the powers and responsibilities 
which is given the Government, the people expect fairness, evenhanded 
justice, impartiality, and they held the innate belief that those in 
power can be trusted to be good stewards of their power.
  Our form of democracy relies on checks and balances to keep too much 
power from ending up in just one place--and Congress, as the people's 
closest link to their Government has the responsibility to keep a sharp 
eye out for abuses and breaches of the people's trust.
  Thus every Member of Congress takes an oath of office, to uphold the 
Constitution--and certainly part of that duty to be ever watchful for 
abuses of power. Interestingly, and not surprisingly, it nearly always 
falls to the party out of power to be the more diligent in watching out 
for abuses.
  No one disputes this.
  But one other fact should also be noted. As important it is for the 
general public to believe in and trust that their elected leaders are 
performing their jobs in an ethical, truthful, and fair manner--we, in 
Congress, must also believe that those in high positions of 
responsibility are telling us the truth. When we ask questions or make 
inquiries we must trust that administrations will tell the truth, will 
be honest, and that when we get an answer, it is a full and complete 
one.
  Unfortunately, Madam President, it is this standard that inevitably 
some administration officials seem unable to comprehend.
  Instead of cooperation and truthfulness we have seen evasions, 
omissions, misstatements, and possibly outright lies.
  And the story of potential abuse of the public trust, the 
politicization of independent agencies and investigations, the use of 
confidential material for political gain--it only seems to get worse 
the deeper you look.
  Madam President, the next rounds of hearings will go a long way 
toward clearing the air, and I commend the chairman of the Banking 
Committee for brining this matter back into the public eye.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Thank you, Madam President, and I thank my colleague from 
Maryland.
  Madam President, let me begin these brief remarks by commending our 
colleagues from New York and Maryland for what I think is a very fair 
and balanced resolution. Obviously, matters such as this are a source 
of deep controversy and can get out of hand. The fact that they have 
presented us with a resolution that is balanced and fair is a credit to 
both the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from New York. Any 
discussion of this ought to begin with an expression of appreciation on 
the part of all of us in this body, particularly those of us who will 
serve on the special committee and who will be working during this 
calendar year to carry out the mandates and requirements of this 
resolution. Now I would like to make a few brief observations about the 
resolution.
  As my colleagues know, Madam President, there was a vote by 98 to 0 
on March 17 of last year to look into these matters, and what we are 
talking about here is a continuation of that process. This resolution 
is simply another step in a process designed to help the American 
public know the facts about Whitewater.
  Second, I would like to point out, Madam President, that the 
President has fully cooperated in this process. We ought to commend him 
for this unprecedented level of cooperation.
  Many of us recall other Presidents who, when confronted with similar 
situations, have clogged up the courts of this land, fighting 
everything along the way. This administration has not done that. In 
fact, the administration has been entirely forthcoming.
  As we discuss these matters, it is important to make it clear that, 
unlike previous situations where there was a constant conflict between 
the executive branch and the legislative branch over documents and 
testimony, that has not been the case here. The administration has 
complied with every document request, answered every question that has 
been submitted to it, and I am confident is ready and willing to 
cooperate in this second stage of the proceeding.
  I think that is an important point to make because, as we look down 
the road, there is the potential for a prolonged and nasty conflict 
between the executive and legislative branch.
  Third, Madam President, I think last year's hearings, despite moments 
of passion and emotion, were credible and fair. I think it is important 
to point out and to state emphatically that it was the conclusion of 
the committee [[Page S6777]] last year that there had been no violation 
of criminal statutes or ethical standards.
  Of course, individual Members may have their own particular opinions 
on those matters, and certainly that is their right. But, as a 
conclusion of the committee, let me restate, Madam President, there 
were no violations of any criminal statute or any ethical standards. 
That was the conclusion of last year's hearings.
  Now we are going to go to a second phase. I have listened to some who 
are suggesting that there must have been some wrongdoing, or, even 
worse, they have already reached the conclusion that there was 
wrongdoing. Quite simply, that is inappropriate. The purpose of the 
hearings is to determine whether there was wrongdoing--we must not 
prejudge the matter.
  We do not want to end up appearing like that famous character from 
the West, Judge Roy Bean. Everyone will remember Judge Roy Bean. He 
used to say, ``We'll hang 'em first and try 'em later.''
  Sometimes that can happen in congressional proceedings, and I know it 
is not the intention of anyone on the committee to have that be the 
case.
  So let us avoid partisan wrangling and get the facts on the table. 
Now the presumption of innocence may not apply to congressional 
hearings in the same way as in our court system, but there ought to at 
least be an effort to fully consider matters, and let people have their 
say, before we reach any conclusions.
  Last year, the Senate held thorough hearings, as I mentioned earlier. 
The committee heard from 30 witnesses, generating 2,600 pages of 
testimony; 38 witnesses were deposed, generating some 7,000 additional 
pages of testimony.
  It is very difficult to sort through that much material and I want to 
thank the staff for the work they did. That was a herculean effort. 
Both the majority and minority staff had to work extremely long hours 
on this matter, Madam President, and they deserve our appreciation.
  Obviously, Madam President, the Senate's integrity and credibility 
are at stake. The American public has a right to know the facts about 
Whitewater and the Senate has a constitutional obligation to see that 
they do.
  Last year, the facts were presented fully and impartially. That must 
be our goal this year. The public, in my view, is fed up with the 
partisanship that seems to cloud every issue.
  As we go through this process, I urge my colleagues to avoid that 
partisan pitfall. Because we are entering a presidential campaign 
cycle, that may be difficult for some. But we must all try. The 
President is sadly correct, and I suspect most of my colleagues, 
regardless of their political persuasion, would agree when he says that 
the politics of personal attack are alive and well. I agree with the 
President that the best way to put this matter behind us is to address 
the facts candidly.
  Madam President, I ask for 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. I yield whatever time the Senator requires.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. I will wrap this up.
  Madam President, the public wants us to present the facts 
impartially, come to our conclusions and then move on. And it bears 
repeating that after going through such a process last year, the 
Banking Committee concluded that there had been no violation of 
criminal statutes or ethical standards.
  During this next stage, we must not get into political diversions and 
drag this thing out. The American people want us to get on with the 
business of creating jobs and expanding economic opportunity, of 
dealing with health care issues and education. They want us to tackle 
the hard problems that they face every day.
  I think it was there sense of frustration with politics as usual, 
more than anything else, that created the changes in the Congress. We 
now have a Republican leadership, and every committee is chaired by 
that party. They now have an even greater responsibility to the public. 
They must elevate the good of the nation above politics and I hope that 
they will do so in proceeding with this matter.
  Once again, I commend Senator D'Amato and Senator Sarbanes for 
putting together a fair resolution and for stating their determination 
to wrap this matter up by February of next year. I hope we can stick to 
that schedule and finish this job efficiently.
  Finally, while the subject of the independent counsel statute is not 
the subject of this particular resolution, Madam President, I want to 
suggest that we revisit that legislation as soon as we can.
  The idea of appointing an independent counsel was to keep politics 
out of these issues. Unfortunately, it seems that the statute may 
invite fishing expeditions. We need to be very careful about spending 
the taxpayers dollars in this way. Otherwise we will have some 
questionable expenditures. I was told the other day that someone was 
looking at a witnesses' grade school and high school transcripts. I 
hope that report is inaccurate because there is just no way to justify 
that kind of expenditure.
  There is the potential for an independent counsel to run wild and we 
need to carefully monitor these matters. I caution those who would like 
to use independent counsels for political gain--regardless of whether 
it was a previous administration or this administration--that whatever 
goes around comes around. We would be well advised, in my view, to take 
a hard look at how some of these operations are being run.
  Of course, Congress spends a great deal of money on these 
investigations. The Banking Committee spent about $400,000 last year, 
and this resolution authorizes another $950,000. But even that amount 
is only a fraction of what the independent counsel is spending. We are 
looking at almost $10 million spent by the independent counsel and that 
is just the beginning of it. That figure will go higher.
  Of course, the Federal Government must investigate serious 
accusations of wrongdoing to maintain the public trust. But when it 
appears there are more Federal agents operating in Little Rock than 
there are in high-crime areas in certain parts of our country, then one 
ought to pause and look carefully at what we are doing.
  Again, I know that the independent counsel statute is not the subject 
of this resolution. I do not want to inject a whole new subject of 
debate. But I think we ought to take another look at that law and make 
sure it is operating properly.
  Again, I commend the chairman of the Banking Committee, my friend 
from New York, Senator D'Amato, and my colleague and friend from 
Maryland, Senator Sarbanes, for the fine job they have done in working 
out this resolution. We have a very difficult job in front of us. 
Hopefully, we will conduct our work thoroughly, fairly, and promptly, 
and in a manner that brings credit to this great body. I look forward 
to the effort.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, at this time, 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. D'AMATO. I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 10 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding me this time. I support the resolution and commend the 
chairman and the ranking member of the Banking Committee for presenting 
a resolution which I understand will have wide bipartisan support.
  I believe it is important to have a congressional inquiry on this in 
the broad terms which are described in the resolution. It is with some 
regret, I note, that it has taken us more than a year to get to this 
point. But it is better late than never, and these are matters where 
congressional oversight is important.
  I recognize the sensitivity of a congressional inquiry on a matter 
which is being handled by an independent counsel, also known as the 
special prosecutor. But the functions are very, very different where 
you have an investigation which is handled through grand jury 
proceedings which are secret and which are directed at indictments. I 
know that field with some detail, having been a district attorney 
myself and [[Page S6778]] having run grand jury investigations. That is 
very, very different from a congressional inquiry where we are 
inquiring into matters in the public record for the public to see what 
is going on in Government with a view to legislative changes.
  The thrust and focus are entirely different between a grand jury 
investigation conducted by independent counsel and a congressional 
inquiry which will be handled through the Banking Committee. I am glad 
to see that the composition of the committee will be expanded to 
include the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, or 
their designees.
  Madam President, the issues involved here have long been a concern of 
many of us in this Chamber, and I refer to statements which I made last 
year dated March 17, June 9, June 16, and June 21. I will not 
incorporate them because that would unduly burden the Record, but a 
good many of my thoughts were expressed last year on the matter.
  I was particularly concerned about issues involving the RTC as to 
their inclusion, which was not handled last year, and I am glad to see 
that the Resolution Trust Corporation is included in the scope of the 
inquiry which we are about to undertake.
  This matter was one that I focused on when we had an oversight 
hearing on the Department of Justice on July 28 of last year, and I ask 
unanimous consent, Madam President, that a number of documents be 
printed in the Record which have not been made a part of the Record 
heretofore: My letter dated July 26, 1994, to Attorney General Reno; 
the attachment of a list of documents which I had wanted to inquire 
into during the proceedings before the Judiciary Committee; the 
response which was made by Robert Fiske, who was then independent 
counsel; and a portion of the transcript dated July 28, 1994 before the 
Senate Judiciary Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, these documents will show on their face concerns 
which were on the record and which were apparent from such documents: 
that there were considerable issues to be investigated in the RTC at 
that time. It is unfortunate, in a sense, that there has been the long 
delay, because we all know, as a matter of investigative procedure, 
that leads grow cold and witnesses' memories diminish and that the best 
investigation is a prompt investigation.
 But the time factor is something that cannot be altered at this time, 
and at least now we will have a congressional inquiry which will move 
forward into these very, very important matters.

  I agree with the distinguished Senator from Connecticut when he talks 
about the presumption of innocence. I think that is indispensable as a 
matter of fairness to all concerned. But these are questions which need 
to be answered, and questions do not imply an answer of any sort; they 
raise issues which ought to be answered. We ought to let the chips fall 
where they may. And in a Government based on a Constitution which 
elevates the separation of powers among the Congress in article I, and 
the executive branch in article II, and the judiciary in article III, 
the congressional oversight function is a very, very important 
function. Now, finally, we will be in the context where we will be able 
to inquire into these matters and to find out what those answers are.
  I am confident that there will be a fair, judicious, quality inquiry 
conducted by the committee, and this resolution is one which I think 
ought to be supported broadly by the U.S. Senate.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
                               Exhibit 1

U.S. Senate, Commmittee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, July 28, 1994

    (The following is a partial transcript of the above proceedings)

       Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Attorney General 
     Reno, as you know, I had intended to ask you questions about 
     the handling by the Department of Justice in the matter 
     involving David Hale in this oversight hearing, and I may be 
     able to cover the principal points of my interest without 
     undue specification, or at least undue specification from 
     your point of view.
       At the outset, I would like to put into the record my 
     letter to you dated July 26, 1994, together with the 
     chronology of events and all the attachments which I sent 
     over to you, except for numbers 20 and 21. I may get into 20 
     and 21. I think the balance have been in the record in one 
     form or another, and even if they haven't I think they are 
     appropriate for the public record.
       [The letter referred to follows:]

                                                      U.S. Senate,

                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                    Washington, DC, July 26, 1994.
     Hon. Janet Reno,
     Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
       Dear Attorney General Reno: I have just noted that you are 
     scheduled to testify before the Judiciary Committee on 
     Thursday, July 28, at 2:00 p.m. at an oversight hearing.
       In that hearing I intend to ask questions on the Justice 
     Department's role in investigations of Madison Guaranty and/
     or ``Whitewater.'' While I have not had access to many of the 
     relevant documents, I have seen a few and am alerting you to 
     those documents which will formulate at least some of the 
     basis for my questions.
       Some of the documents are referred to in my floor statement 
     on June 21. Other documents that I may refer to are listed on 
     the attached index.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Arlen Specter.

       Senator Specter. I would also want to put into the record 
     the faxed letter from Robert Fiske, Independent Counsel, to 
     me, dated July 27, 1994.
       [The letter referred to follows:]

                                       U.S. Department of Justice,

                            Office of the Independent Counsel,

                                   Little Rock, AR, July 27, 1994.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Specter: The Department of Justice has sent 
     over to me a copy of your letter of July 26, 1994 to Attorney 
     General Reno, together with the index of documents enclosed 
     with it.
       It is apparent from a review of the documents on that index 
     that they relate to the handling by the Department of Justice 
     of a particular criminal referral from the RTC. Based upon 
     interviews we have had with representatives from the Kansas 
     City Field Office of the RTC, we are currently actively 
     investigating this matter. Accordingly, I would respectfully 
     request that you not go into this subject with the Attorney 
     General at your hearing tomorrow since to do so might 
     prejudice our ongoing investigation. (For similar reasons we 
     request that you not go into the matter referenced by 
     documents #20 and #21.)
       We have made a similar request to both the Senate Committee 
     on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the House 
     Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs which, as you 
     know, are in the process of conducting Whitewater hearings. 
     Both of those Committees have agreed not to go into this 
     subject until we have completed our investigation.
           Respectfully yours,
                                             Robert B. Fiske, Jr.,
                                              Independent Counsel.

       Senator Specter. At the outset, I want to say for the 
     record that I do not agree with the deference which the 
     Congress has accorded the independent counsel because I 
     believe that Congress has independent status, and at least 
     equal status, if not more important status, on matters of 
     public policy than the criminal prosecutions. But the Senate 
     has decided otherwise as a political matter, in my opinion.
       As I reviewed the charter of Mr. Fiske, it seemed to me 
     that questions about oversight on what happened with David 
     Hale were not within his charter, his charter being to 
     investigate matters of possible criminal or civil wrongdoing. 
     I am advised to the contrary on that, and we may get into 
     that in some specificity.
       So let me start in an effort to ask the questions in a 
     generalized way, but candidly as they arise on David Hale's 
     matter. I refer to a memorandum from RTC investigator Jean 
     Lewis to Richard Iorio which quotes officials within the 
     Department of Justice, which is why I ask you about this; 
     specifically, Ms. Donna Henneman in the Office of Legal 
     Counsel. Without making anything more specific as to the Hale 
     matter, my question to you as a general matter is, any time a 
     referral comes in to the Department of Justice that would 
     make the Department look bad or has political ramifications, 
     it goes to the Attorney General. Is that true?
       Attorney General Reno. I don't know whether any time 
     something comes in to the Department that would make the 
     Department look bad it comes to the Attorney General.
       Senator Specter. Well, if you don't know, who does, 
     Attorney General Reno?
       Attorney General Reno. I would suspect that each one of the 
     95,000 people who hear something that might make the 
     Department look bad. I think your question is a little bit 
     broad. I cannot answer it. As I have tried to say from the 
     very beginning, when I appointed Mr. Fiske I tried to make 
     sure that he was as independent as possible. I have continued 
     to try to do that, and I think the [[Page S6779]] worst thing 
     that I could do would be to comment or talk about matters 
     that he is pursuing. I should be happy, because I have great 
     respect for the Senate and for you, at the conclusion of the 
     matter to try to respond to anything, including the 
     specifics.
       Senator Specter. Well, I don't think that is sufficient, 
     Attorney General Reno, because I think this is a legitimate 
     matter for Judiciary Committee oversight, and we don't have 
     very much of it. But I accept your point that my question was 
     too general, so I will be specific.
       The investigator, L. Jean Lewis, of RTC, had many 
     conversations with representatives of the Department of 
     Justice, as reflected in the number of the memoranda which I 
     sent on to you. So if it is too general as to whether any 
     time a referral comes in that would make the Department look 
     bad or has political ramifications it goes to the Attorney 
     General, I would ask you, were you personally informed about 
     the referral from the RTC on the check kiting case involving 
     Madison Guaranty?
       Attorney General Reno. As I indicated to you, Senator, I 
     made a determination when I appointed Mr. Fiske that I would 
     not comment or make any comment. He has expressed to you that 
     he would prefer that I not comment on the specific matters. I 
     do not want to do anything that would impair has 
     independence. I do think you have an oversight function with 
     respect to the Department of Justice, and when it would be 
     appropriate for me to comment I would look forward to the 
     opportunity to do so.
       Senator Specter. Well, tell me, Attorney General Reno, has 
     would it impair Mr. Fiske's investigation or prosecution for 
     you to answer a question as to whether you had personal 
     knowledge of a referral to the Department of Justice?
       Attorney General Reno. I can't tell you, sir, because I 
     have tried to do everything in my power to make sure that Mr. 
     Fiske's investigation is independent and I don't know what 
     his investigation involves. Therefore, I am not going to say 
     anything that could possibly interfere with his 
     investigation.
       Senator Specter. Well, my question to you is how could it 
     possibly interfere with his investigation to answer a 
     question as to when you had knowledge of a referral to the 
     United States Department of Justice.
       Attorney General Reno. I don't know, sir, because I am not 
     going to take the chance of interfering with it. You would 
     have to ask Mr. Fiske because I don't want to do anything at 
     this time that would interfere or impair that investigation. 
     I do not know the nature of the process of that investigation 
     and it would be inappropriate for me to comment, but I do----
       The Chairman. Put another way, Senator, how would it shed 
     any light in this oversight if the Attorney General answered 
     that question? What the hell difference does it make now?
       Senator Specter. Well, the hell difference that it makes 
     now is on an earlier question which I asked that whenever 
     there is a matter with political ramifications that it goes 
     to the Attorney General--and I asked that question in its 
     broadest terms and was told that it was too general, so that 
     is when I came back to the specific question.
       The Chairman. Let me ask the question the other way to the 
     Senator. Mr. Fiske's investigation in this matter is likely 
     to be wrapped up. He has been moving expeditiously.
      Does it matter to the Senator whether or not the Attorney 
     General speaks to this issue today or in two weeks or a 
     month, or whenever it is when Mr. Fiske settles this part 
     of his investigation? I don't know when he is going to 
     settle that, but I mean he has been moving very rapidly.
       In terms of oversight for next year's budget and last 
     year's actions, it seems to me the Senator would have plenty 
     of time to ask these questions as it would impact on the 
     outcome of the Senator's view as to what the Attorney General 
     should or shouldn't do in the future.
       Senator Specter. Well, I would be glad to respond to the 
     chairman. It does make a difference to me, and it makes a 
     difference to me because this is an oversight hearing and the 
     request to the committee chairman to have oversight on these 
     matters was declined. There has been a charter which is very, 
     very narrow before the Banking Committee, and this does not 
     involve, to my knowledge, a matter which is within the 
     charter of Mr. Fiske until when I sent a letter to the 
     Attorney General, I suddenly find a reply from Mr. Fiske.
       I had two detailed conversations with Mr. Fiske, the thrust 
     of which--and I would be glad to detail them--led me to the 
     conclusion that there was absolutely no interference with the 
     criminal prosecution, a subject that I have had some 
     experience with.
       So when I asked the Attorney General a question as to when 
     she has knowledge of a referral, I can't conceive that it 
     interferes with an investigation, and that is why I am asking 
     an experienced prosecutor who is now the Attorney General how 
     could it conceivably interfere with a pending investigation.
       Attorney General Reno. An experienced prosecutor, Senator, 
     doesn't comment about something that she doesn't know about. 
     I don't know about the details of Mr. Fiske's investigation. 
     But if Mr. Fiske doesn't have any problem with it, what I 
     would suggest that we do is prepare the questions, submit 
     them to Mr. Fiske. If he has no objection to my answering 
     them, then we will try to answer them because I honor your 
     oversight function and I would want to be able to honor that 
     and to not interfere with Mr. Fiske's investigation.
       Senator Specter. Attorney General Reno, I did not say that 
     Mr. Fiske did not have a problem. He specifically told me 
     that he would like the field to be totally left alone. What I 
     said to you was that after talking to Mr. Fiske, I had no 
     doubt that these questions were appropriate, in my judgment, 
     on oversight by the Judiciary Committee.
       Let me ask you this, Attorney General Reno. In terms of the 
     charter that Mr. Fiske has about investigating matters which 
     may involve a violation of the criminal or civil law, is the 
     handling by the Department of Justice of David Hale's matter 
     something that falls within that charter?
       Attorney General Reno. I have tried to, again, let Mr. 
     Fiske define that based on the charter that we described so 
     that I would not in any way impair his independence.
       Senator Specter. Well, do you have any interest in whether 
     any current employees of the Department of Justice are 
     subject to an investigation which might be within Mr. Fiske's 
     charter for possible criminal wrongdoings?
       Attorney General Reno. Yes.
       Senator Specter. Well, if that were so, would you have a 
     duty as the head of the Department of Justice to take some 
     action on those matters before a long investigation was 
     concluded?
       Attorney General Reno. It depends on what they are, sir.
       Senator Specter. Well, suppose they were obstruction of 
     justice?
       Attorney General Reno. It depends on the nature of the 
     facts and the circumstances, sir
       Senator Specter. Well, do you know anything about that on 
     the Hale matter?
       Attorney General Reno. Again, sir, I can't comment on the 
     Hale matter.
       Senator Specter. I am not asking you to comment on the Hale 
     matter. I am asking you whether you know anything about the 
     Hale matter.
       Attorney General Reno. That would be commenting, sir, and 
     what I would suggest, if we want to pursue this, is that you 
     pose the questions and then let's see whether Mr. Fiske 
     thinks that they would in any way interfere with the 
     investigation. I am delighted to answer them if they don't 
     interfere.
       Senator Specter. Well, I am not going to follow the way you 
     would like me to proceed. I make a judgment as to what I 
     think a Senator ought to do by way of oversight, and if you 
     have a concern about that I am prepared to discuss it with 
     you, but I am not prepared to take your instruction or your 
     suggestion.
       The question that I pose on an investigation by Mr. Fiske 
     as independent counsel within his charter to investigate 
     crimes, obstruction of justice, within the Department of 
     Justice is not something which bears on anything which could 
     conceivably implicate the underlying facts on what David Hale 
     is doing.
       Is Ms. Paula Casey--I understand that she is, but can you 
     confirm for me that she is still the United States attorney?
       Attorney General Reno. Yes, sir, she is.
       Senator Specter. Is she the subject of a criminal
        investigation by Mr. Fiske?
       Attorney General Reno. You would have to talk to Mr. Fiske.
       Senator Specter. Do you know whether or not she is the 
     subject of a criminal investigation by Mr. Fiske?
       Attorney General Reno. You would have to talk to Mr. Fiske. 
     I have avoided having anything to do with Mr. Fiske's 
     investigation in terms of any information that he may have so 
     that I do not impair his independence.
       Senator Specter. Would you continue a United States 
     attorney operating actively if that United States attorney 
     were the subject of a criminal investigation?
       Attorney General Reno. It would depend on the 
     circumstances.
       Senator Specter. Well, under what circumstances would you 
     terminate such an attorney?
       Attorney General Reno. It would depend on the 
     circumstances. Again, you get into a situation of 
     hypotheticals and it is far better that we look at the actual 
     facts, and I would be happy at the appropriate time to do 
     that with you.
       Senator Specter. Well, Attorney General Reno, I consider 
     your responses, as I see them, totally unsatisfactory, and I 
     consider them totally unsatisfactory because I am not asking 
     you anything about a pending investigation. I am asking you 
     questions as to what came to your knowledge as the Attorney 
     General of the United States Department of Justice.
       I am asking you questions about what you know and about 
     what your policy would be if there were charges of criminal 
     wrongdoing, and I don't ask these questions in a vacuum or 
     for no purpose. I ask these questions in the context of 
     having initiated an inquiry on oversight on something which 
     is outside the charter of the independent counsel.
       The Chairman. In your opinion, Senator, right, is that 
     correct? In your opinion?
       Senator Specter. Everything I say is in my opinion. You can 
     add that to everything. I don't speak for anybody but myself, 
     but I do speak independently for myself.
       I took a look at an extensive series of correspondence 
     which has gotten to the Department of Justice and gotten to 
     the FBI and gotten to the United States attorney's office and 
     gotten to the executive office and gotten to the Office of 
     Legal Counsel, according to these documents, which I sent to 
     you as soon [[Page S6780]] as I knew there would be this 
     hearing so you would have an opportunity to review them. I 
     promptly advised the chairman as to what I intended to do 
     there would be no surprises about it.
       The Chairman. That is correct.
       Senator Specter. When I pursue the matter and find I have a 
     telephone call and a letter from the independent counsel, I 
     call him and then I am told that it is within his charter, 
     that there is an investigation which is underway for 
     obstruction of justice.
       As I review the facts of this matter, I am struck with 
     wonderment as to how officials in the United States 
     attorney's office decline to have immunity granted to David 
     Hale, and then independent counsel comes in and in a short 
     time has a grant of immunity. Then officials in the United 
     States attorney's office in Little Rock recuse themselves in 
     a later matter, and I wonder how can they recuse themselves 
     in a later matter without having recused themselves in an 
     earlier matter, given their relationship to subjects of the 
     investigation.
       I ran a big office myself as a prosecutor, and if I had any 
     reason to believe anybody in my office had any problem, I 
     wouldn't wait for anybody to cleanse it totally and 
     thoroughly and immediately. I do not believe that the charter 
     to the independent counsel takes away any of the authority or 
     the responsibility of the Attorney General to act in that 
     circumstance.
       In my opinion--everything I say is in my opinion--the 
     questions which I have asked you are entirely appropriate 
     questions, and I give some additional background because I 
     think these are matters which ought to be answered, and I 
     intend to pursue them and I don't intend to wait.
       Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
       The Chairman. Thank you.
       General, I think you have answered totally appropriately, 
     in my opinion. I think were you to do otherwise, in light of 
     Mr. Fiske's comments, you would be excoriated by Mr. Fiske 
     and anyone else. I guarantee you, you would have an article 
     saying that you have interfered if you went in and, quote, 
     ``cleansed,'' were there a need to cleanse. You would be 
     accused of whitewashing to avoid Mr. Fiske being able to 
     fully look at the matter.
       You are answering, in my opinion, totally appropriately, 
     and you have done what I don't know many others have been 
     willing to do. You have said to this committee, without 
     having to have some big show on the floor, that when Mr. 
     Fiske says he is finished with this phase of the 
     investigation you will come back and you will answer 
     questions. It seems to me you are being totally appropriate, 
     but that is why there are Democrats and Republicans, 
     chocolate and vanilla, good and bad, right and wrong, 
     different points of view. Our opinions are different.
       I respect this man. He did notify me. Stick to your guns, 
     don't answer his questions, in my opinion.
       Senator Specter. If I might have just one sentence?
       The Chairman. Yes. You may have more than one sentence.
       Senator Specter. I don't think this matter has anything to 
     do with good and bad or chocolate and vanilla.
       The Chairman. Well, it may not have to do with good and 
     bad, but it has to do with what one considers to be the 
     appropriate way for you to respond. I think you are 
     responding appropriately because I think you are in the 
     ultimate catch-22 position. At the request of all of us in 
     the Senate, you appointed a Republican named Fiske. Now, the 
     Republican named Fiske tells you, please don't respond to 
     anything having to do with this. You are being asked to 
     respond to something having to do with this, and if you 
     respond or don't respond, you are in deep trouble in the 
     minds of whoever wants to view you as being in trouble. I 
     think you are doing just fine. My view is worth no more, 
     probably a little less in this circumstance, than the Senator 
     from Pennsylvania's, but good job, General.

                                 Index

       1. RTC Chronology of Criminal Investigation.
       2. Letter of September 1, 1992 from L. Richard Iorio (RTC-
     KC) to Steve Irons (FBI) transmitting criminal referral.
       3. Letter of September 1, 1992 from L. Richard Iorio (RTC-
     KC) to Charles A. Banks (DOJ) transmitting criminal referral.
       4. RTC Internal Memorandum, May 3, 1993. Background remarks 
     and conversation with AUSA Bob Roddey's Office re: Madison 
     Guaranty Savings referral.
       5. RTC Internal Memorandum, May 19, 1993. Additional 
     conversation with Office of Legal Counsel for U.S. Attorney's 
     U.S. Justice Department, Washington, D.C. No record of 
     Madison criminal referral at Washington DOJ.
       6. RTC-KC E-Mail, May 19, 1993. Madison matter forwarded to 
     Donna Henneman in ``Legal Counsel.'' Referral submitted to 
     that office ``because of the political ramifications and 
     political motivations.''
       7. RTC-KC E-Mail, May 26, 1993. Follow-up call from Donna 
     Henneman (DOJ). RTC advised by an FBI agent in Little Rock 
     that it was a `very solid case of check kiting, and was 
     highly prosecutable.'' Henneman was growing increasingly 
     frustrated by the situation, because she had seen the 
     information, knew that it had come in, and couldn't 
     understand why she was having such a hard time tracking where 
     the referral and exhibits had gone.
       8. RTC-KC E-Mail, June 8, 1993. Conversation with Donna 
     Henneman (DOJ). Madison Referral has reappeared on her desk. 
     Criminal Division has sent memo to Doug Frazier (in Depty. 
     Atty. General Heyman's office) advising him that there was 
     ``no identifiable basis for recusal of the U.S. Attorney in 
     the Eastern District of Arkansas.'' Referral sent to Frazier 
     for review and final decision.
       9. RTC-KC E-Mail, June 23, 1993. Conversation with Donna 
     Henneman (DOJ). Package returned from Frazier. Frazier 
     appointed U.S. Attorney in Florida.
       10. RTC-KC E-Mail, June 23, 1993. Further conversation with 
     Donna Henneman (DOJ). Spoke with Doug Frazier. Decision made 
     to return the referral back to the Arkansas U.S. Attorney. No 
     basis for recusal.
       11. RTC-KC E-Mail, June 29, 1993. Source indicates Madison 
     referral has been returned to Little Rock. Acting U.S. 
     Attorney will not act on referral. It is being held until 
     U.S. Attorney designee Paula Casey takes office.
       12. RTC-KC E-Mail, September 23, 1993. Conversation with 
     Donna Henneman (DOJ). Washington DOJ would like to be copied 
     on all future transmittal letters concerning Madison 
     referrals with an additional one paragraph summary of the 
     content of the referrals with the transmittal letters, so 
     that Henneman will be aware of those with ``sensitivity 
     issues.''
       13. RTC-KC E-Mail, September 29, 1993. Conversation with 
     Donna Henneman (DOJ). DOJ would like copies of all future 
     Madison referrals sent to Washington in addition to sending 
     to U.S. Attorney in Little Rock. Henneman will confirm this 
     in writing.
       14. RTC-KC E-Mail, September 29, 1993. Conversation with 
     Donna Henneman (DOJ). Washington DOJ withdrawing request for 
     referrals to be sent directly to Washington, but would still 
     like copies of transmittal letters with addendum summary 
     paragraph.
       15. RTC-KC E-Mail, October 27, 1993. Conversation with 
     Donna Henneman (DOJ). Inquiry on whether declination letter 
     had arrived from Little Rock U.S. Attorney.
       16. Letter of October 27, 1993 from Paula J. Casey (U.S. 
     Attorney) to L. Jean Lewis (RTC). Declination letter on the 
     Madison referral.
       17. Letter of November 1, 1993 from L. Jean Lewis (RTC) to 
     Paris J. Casey (U.S. Attorney). Confirmation of declination 
     letter and the stipulation from October 27th letter that the 
     matter was concluded prior to the beginning of Paula Casey's 
     tenure and that the RTC had never been advised of such 
     result. Chronology of correspondence between RTC and DOJ.
       18. RTC-KC E-Mail, November 15, 1993. Transmittal of white 
     paper outlining chronology of events related to 1992 Madison 
     referral. Challenges news article indicating that decision to 
     decline Madison referral had been prior to Paula Casey's 
     appointment.
       19. RTC-KC E-Mail with attachment, January 6, 1994. 
     Discussion of contact with reporter.
       20. Letter of September 15, 1993 from Randy Coleman (David 
     Hale Attorney) to Paula Casey. Coleman has been trying to 
     negotiate a plea and senses that Casey is reluctant because 
     of ``political senitivity.''
       21. Letter of September 20, 1993 from Randy Coleman to 
     Michael Johnson. Reiterates interest in plea negotiations, 
     offering David Hale's information and willingness to 
     participate in undercover activities.

  Mr. SARBANES. What is the time situation, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 31 minutes; the 
Senator from New York has 20 minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Arkansas, Senator Pryor.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, we have come to a point in this debate when 
we are about to vote on this particular resolution. If I might, I would 
like to talk for a few moments about the public's right to know, as the 
distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee from New York has made 
reference to.
  He says the public has a right to know what happened in the 
Whitewater matter. The public has a right to know who did what, when, 
and whatever. I can assure you that the Senator from Arkansas does not 
disagree.
  But I think also the public has a right to know something else. I 
think the public has a right to know in this case exactly how much 
money of the taxpayers' dollars we are spending in the so-called 
Whitewater matter. I think the public has a right to know that with 
this resolution, if it passes and if the funding goes through--and we 
all assume it will--the Senate alone will have spent, up through 
January or maybe February of next year, in the Whitewater matter $1.350 
million of Senate money to investigate this matter. I do not have 
available the amount of money the House of Representatives has spent 
and will spend in the future. And we do not know exactly how much the 
cost of the independent counsel will be. But here are some figures I 
might throw out for the Record at this time. To the best of our 
knowledge, Mr. [[Page S6781]] President, thus far, as of August 31. 
1994, the independent counsel, Mr. Starr and Mr. Fiske, combined, spent 
$1.879 million. Projected funding for the independent counsel for the 
1995 fiscal year is $6.3 million, which is a subtotal of $8.129 
million, and a total, adding all the figures up, Mr. President, for 
both the Senate and the independent counsel to investigate so-called 
Whitewater, comes to almost $10 million in taxpayers' dollars.
  Mr. President, I think there is something else the public has a right 
to know. I think the public has a right to know that this White House, 
this President, this First Lady, this administration, has never one 
time been accused of lack of cooperation. In fact, our President has 
pointed out, as one of our colleagues has already mentioned, that to be 
candid and truthful in this matter is going to be the quickest and best 
way to get to the bottom of it.
  In the first round of hearings last summer, the committee heard from 
30 witnesses generating 2,600 pages of testimony, deposing 38 
witnesses, generating 7,000 pages of testimony.
  The administration has produced thousands of pages of documents for 
committee review. This administration has complied with every document 
request. They have answered every question posed to it. The 
administration is ready and willing to cooperate on this second round 
of hearings and it bears emphasis, I think, that after the long days of 
hearings and pages of documents reviewed, that the Banking Committee 
concluded at the end of this hearing, in phase 1, that there had been 
no violation of a criminal statute and no violation of an ethical 
standard.
  Mr. President, I think, too, it needs to be added that at no time 
during any of these investigations or any of these hearings, whether it 
be in Little Rock or Washington, the Banking Committee or the special 
counsel, wherever, to the best of our knowledge, not one witness, not 
one person has taken the fifth amendment.
  I think that this speaks loudly and clearly about this 
administration's position, wanting to get on with the important 
business of our country.
  Mr. President, let me compliment our friend, Senator Sarbanes, for 
working out what I think--and going forward with--is a fairly 
reasonable proposal in trying to attack this problem and to set up 
these hearings. I think that there are some things, however, that I 
must state that I do not feel are fair. I do not feel that it is fair 
for one of the members of the committee, as he did earlier in this 
debate, to come to the floor and say what should have been within the 
scope of this hearing and then start talking about those particular 
issues as if to condemn them, even though they are not in the scope of 
these particular hearings.
  Mr. President, I think for a Senator to come to the floor who is a 
member of the Banking Committee and to make a statement like he knows 
for a fact, or he has knowledge that Kenneth Starr, the special 
counsel, is now going to reinvestigate the death of Vince Foster, I 
think the public has a right to know how that particular Senator from 
North Carolina has knowledge of this so-called fact, Mr. President. I 
think the Senator from North Carolina needs to explain how he knows Mr. 
Kenneth Starr is now looking or relooking at the death of Vincent 
Foster.
  Mr. President, we hope that these hearings will be fair. We hope they 
will be soon. We hope that they will be done in a very efficient 
manner. I am just hoping above all, Mr. President, that in this 
hearing, these issues are not going to be bogged down in the political 
morass that we have seen some other hearings conclude with. I would 
like to say, also, Mr. President, that I think for us to go back to the 
1990 Governor's campaign, I think is stretching it a bit. I do not know 
what that has to do with Whitewater. I think some of my colleagues 
would like to see us investigate Bill Clinton when he was the attorney 
general of Arkansas. Maybe we would like to go back to look at his 
campaign of 1974
 when he ran for the U.S. Congress and was defeated. There might be 
some who have no limits on how far back in time we should go.

  I hope we can keep our eye on the ball. I am hoping, Mr. President, 
that we can keep our eye focused on the issue of Whitewater and the 
particular mission under which carefully this resolution has basically 
pointed out would be the scope of this particular hearing.
  I am also concerned that one of our colleagues has referred to the 
``the miserable job of Mr. Fiske.'' Those remarks were made earlier on 
this floor. Of course, they refer to Mr. Fiske, who was allegedly fired 
from this investigation as special counsel because he was not finding 
out enough, bringing forward enough, to satisfy some of our colleagues.
  Mr. President, I will conclude once again, as I have done other times 
on this floor, by quoting a note that Vince Foster wrote. It is his 
last note. It was his last sentence in this note, when he said 
``Here''--reference to Washington--``ruining people is considered 
sport.'' Those were the words written by the late Vincent Foster.
  I am hoping, Mr. President, that when this investigation begins, 
every person involved with that investigation, from top to bottom, will 
realize these are human beings; they have families; they have hopes and 
desires; they have beliefs; and they have reputations. Hopefully, we 
will not treat lightly those reputations, and hopefully we will make 
certain that the character and the nature of these hearings seek 
fairness and justice.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member. Let me say, I 
did not have the opportunity to hear all of his remarks, but let me 
commend the distinguished Senator from Arkansas for what I have heard 
him say. Let me associate myself with each and every one of his words. 
He speaks from the heart, and he certainly speaks for all Members in 
representing what we hope will be the ultimate goal of this committee 
as we begin this ever once more.
  This resolution provides a sum of $950,000 for the purpose of 
completing the work on the Whitewater matter. I think it needs to be 
emphasized again, as we consider the funding, that this resolution 
includes every issue related to Whitewater that has any credence 
whatever. There ought not be any question about its work, its scope, 
and the effort undertaken after today by the Banking Committee.
  The funding will expire on February 29 of next year. It is an 
adequate amount to fund and an ample allowance of time to permit 
comprehensive and thorough hearings, while providing also for the 
completion of this issue.
  In the 103d Congress, the Senate voted on March 17, 1994, on a 
bipartisan vote of 8 to 0, to authorize hearings on the Whitewater 
matter. Senate Resolution 229, adopted in June of last year, authorized 
a first round of hearings which were subsequently held by the Banking 
Committee.
  The new resolution creates a special committee, administered by the 
Banking Committee, to conduct the final round of these hearings. The 
committee will be comprised of the full membership the Banking 
Committee, with the addition of one Republican and one Democratic 
member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Chairman D'Amato will also chair this special committee. Senator 
Sarbanes will serve as the ranking member.
  Last year, the Banking Committee heard from a substantial number of 
witnesses and took thousands of pages of testimony. Last year's 
hearings were thorough, fair, and bipartisan. They are the model which 
this year's hearings must emulate.
  The majority, which conducted the hearings last year, were fair and 
judicious in their approach. The new majority in this Senate has the 
obligation to follow that record in exactly the same manner.
  It is important to be thorough and comprehensive, because the 
American people have a right to know all the facts about this matter; 
but it is equally important that hearings be fair and responsible. We 
must all strive to remember and draw the distinction between an 
unproven allegation and a known, verifiable fact.
  What is at stake is the integrity and credibility of the U.S. Senate. 
The last Senate recognized this by voting unanimously to authorize 
hearings when questions were raised that deserved examination. This 
Senate should follow that example. [[Page S6782]] 
  The Senate has the constitutional obligation to see that the facts 
are brought out. It has the moral obligation to do so fully and 
impartially. If we do less, we risk reinforcing the unfortunate 
impression that Senators care more about partisanship than about 
conducting the Nation's business in the best interests of all the 
people.
  The President has said that in an era of attack politics, the best 
way to put this matter behind America is to address the facts candidly. 
He is entirely right.
  The administration cooperated fully and extensively with hearings 
last year and stands ready to do so again this year. Last year, the 
President ordered his administration to cooperate and all parties did 
so. Every document request was honored. Every question raised by the 
committee was answered.
  Americans have the right to know the facts of Whitewater. But 
Americans care about other matters which are also on the Senate agenda 
a great deal more than they do about this.
  Americans are now facing a budget which seeks to dramatically alter 
Medicare and student aid programs, as well as virtually every other 
thing the Government does. They are anxious about the future, because 
so many millions of Americans are either Medicare enrollees or have 
parents who are Medicare enrollees. They are anxious to see the Senate 
begin the debate over the budget soon.
  Americans expect the Senate to devote the bulk of our efforts to the 
issues that are of most importance to the majority of American people. 
I agree. That should be our priority. Today, no issue is more critical 
than resolving the budget debate.
  Mr. President, I urge prompt action on this resolution. I hope it 
allows for completion of this matter with fairness and impartiality, so 
that Senators can focus their attention on the issues that deserve it 
most, the problems facing the American people.
  I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I did not mean to unduly delay acting on 
this resolution, because I think most things that have been said 
summarize where we are at, what we are attempting to do, and the scope 
of the investigation and the manner in which we hope to conduct it.
  I think is important to point out that what one of my colleagues, the 
Senator from North Carolina, Senator Faircloth, pointed out is a matter 
of public record. That is that Judge Starr is reexamining all matters 
reviewed by Special Counsel Fiske, including Vincent Foster's death.
  I think he alluded to that, and I think he did so in that context. 
That is not an area we intend to revisit unless there are some very 
special circumstances, which I certainly do not envision. However, I 
think we have to at least put it in that context.
  As it relates to what the committee did and did not find last year, I 
think it is important to note that the Republican minority did make 
findings on the three major areas where there were questions of 
misconduct and malfeasance. I will not attempt to enunciate all of them 
now, but that was a very strong finding.
  I would also like to point out that the majority made some findings 
and recommendations as it related to the need to indicate very clearly 
that before Congress, all executive branch members and others who 
testified are ``required to be fully candid and forthcoming,'' and 
testify ``truthfully, accurately, and completely.''
       The committee recommends that the President issue an 
     Executive order reinforcing this obligation and setting forth 
     procedures requiring the prompt correction, amplification 
     and/or supplementation of congressional testimony to ensure 
     that it is accurate, thorough and completely responsive.

  Why did they do that? Without going through the entire history, it 
was because it was clear and evident--and, by the way, we have sent to 
Mr. Fiske and to his successor, Mr. Starr, those areas, we being the 
Republicans on the committee, the minority--that those areas of 
concern, that, at the very least, there was testimony that was 
disingenuous, if not outright false. And that is being reviewed.
  So, to say that there were no findings of any wrongdoing, that 
everything was OK, or to imply that there was nothing wrong, is simply 
an oversimplification and is not an accurate or fair representation of 
the situation.
  Now, I do not intend, nor is it my job and duty, to defend the work 
of the special counsel. The special counsel was appointed because the 
Attorney General concluded that it was necessary. It was not this 
Congress. I thought it was. I believe it was. There were leading 
Democrats who spoke to the necessity--Senator Moynihan, Senator 
Bradley, and others--as it relates to dealing with this. But as it 
relates to the expenditures of money, let us look at the record.
  This committee, I think, has been very judicious. The Democratic 
leadership working with Republicans last year authorized $400,000. We 
only spent $300,000. This year we have set $950,000. I hope we spend 
less than that. We have been very judicious in using taxpayers' money. 
So to date we have spent $300,000. Although that is not an 
inconsequential sum, we have been extremely judicious.
  With regard to the expenditures and what has taken place with the 
special counsel, let me just indicate, first, that David Hale pleaded 
guilty. He was a municipal judge and has made some extremely serious 
allegations. The special counsel is reviewing his allegations with 
respect to why he made certain loans that were illegal or 
inappropriate, who asked him to do so, and so forth.
  Webster Hubbell, the third ranking official in the Attorney General's 
office, pleaded guilty to charges that emanated, again, from this 
investigation.
  Neil Ainley, president of the Perry County Bank, where large sums of 
money, $180,000, were taken out to fund campaign activities, pleaded 
guilty.
  Chris Wade, a real estate agent who was the sales agent for 
Whitewater Development, pleaded guilty in a bankruptcy matter. Robert 
Palmer, last December, a Little Rock real estate appraiser, pleaded 
guilty to conspiracy charges relating to backdating and falsifying 
appraisals for Madison Guaranty.
  I make these remarks because I do not believe that it is fair to 
leave the impression that this has just been a big waste of time and 
that there was no wrongdoing. Five individuals, at this early and 
preliminary stage of these investigations, have already pleaded guilty, 
some in very high, responsible positions. That is the work of the 
special counsel. He has to defend the appropriateness of the 
expenditures which he makes.
  However, I think for the record it is fair to reflect that several 
individuals have pleaded guilty to various charges. As it relates to 
our work, I am going to reiterate that I believe this committee has 
properly set forth the venue, the scope and the way in which it intends 
to move forward in a bipartisan manner to find out the truth and get 
the facts. Was there an attempt to impede legitimate investigations 
undertaken at RTC? Why were certain people taken off the case? Why were 
certain RTC investigators disciplined? Why was information about 
confidential criminal referrals made public? Was there a failure to go 
forward? These are legitimate questions. There may be appropriate 
reasons. But, then again, we might discover inappropriate action.
  So these areas are within the scope. We are not going to attempt to 
dig up something that does not appear to be really connection to the 
matters that we have set forth. And it is our hope, depending upon the 
schedule of the special counsel as he goes through the materials, that 
we can wind this up sooner rather than later, and conduct the business 
of the people in a manner which reflects credibly on our constitutional 
obligations as Senators.
  Mr. President, I am prepared to yield the remainder of my time. My 
colleague may have something to do. I am prepared to vote on the 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I will take just a couple of minutes, I 
say to my distinguished colleague from New York.
  First of all, I want to underscore the positive and constructive way 
in which the chairman of the Banking Committee and members of his staff 
interacted with us in trying to address the question of working out a 
resolution that we would bring to the floor of the Senate. Obviously, 
it is not an easy thing to do, and Members of the Senate have 
[[Page S6783]] differing views about this matter. But I do think we 
were able to, in the end, work out a rational approach to this inquiry 
and investigation, which I indicated in a sense had been committed to 
last year.
  Obviously, you always have to work out carefully the scope questions, 
which has been done in this resolution, because the scope could be 
infinite, in a sense, if you leave it to people's imagination. So there 
were candidates for scope that I think went beyond the horizon, and 
they are not included. But we have tried to, in effect, put a focus 
here.
  In fact, some of the questions the distinguished Senator from New 
York just raised, that he felt emerged out of the previous hearings--
and he made reference to last year's minority statement in the report--
have in fact been spelled out here as matters that could be looked into 
under this resolution.
  There were other candidates, of course, that were not included. We 
have tried to be rational here. We have tried to be reasonable. The 
matters specified herein have been the outcome of that process.
  Second, I want to say the resolution has been put together in a way 
that presumes that the two sides will work together cooperatively in 
carrying out the inquiry, that the staffs will interact in that 
fashion, that material will be generally available and so on. We are 
trying to get an inquiry here in which everyone is joined in trying to 
find out what the facts are. A lot of questions are raised, and will be 
looked into. If you did not raise questions, you would not have an 
inquiry, so I recognize that. But our job, I think, is to probe the 
factual matter behind those issues.
  I was interested that my colleague earlier used the word 
``allegations,'' and that is what it is until you actually get the 
facts that sustain it. And that is the process we are going to engage 
in. Some things, you know, when you finally examine them, turn out to 
be fairly innocent. At least I think. We had this point about Captain 
Hume, who did not appear when he was supposed to be a witness.
  Well, what happened--obviously there was a slip-up, but I think that 
is what it was, a slip-up. Captain Hume was deposed. He had over 300 
pages of deposition testimony. Apparently at his deposition he said he 
was about to take a--go on a vacation. After that the hearing date was 
set. Everyone sort of assumed that Captain Hume could be brought back 
in for the hearing. A subpoena, I do not think, was issued for him.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I do not think it was issued.
  Mr. SARBANES. I do not think it was issued for him so he did not, as 
it were, ignore a subpoena. And he went on a hunting and fishing trip 
and could not be located, is what happened.
  In the end, I think it was judged that given we had 300 pages worth 
of deposition it was not worth having another hearing simply to bring 
Captain Hume in. I mean it is a small matter, but I only mention it to 
show that sometimes when you really examine the facts you discover that 
something that looked amiss at first has a very simple, plausible, and 
reasonable explanation for it.
  We expect, as I understand it, now to move forward with this. I know 
that the chairman and his staff will be talking with our staff to begin 
to plan the first set of hearings which I think will probably be in the 
next month or so, and then we can proceed from there as we schedule 
other matters which have been stipulated here in the resolution as 
being within the scope of the inquiry which this special committee will 
now undertake.
  But I do again want to underscore the, I think, responsible way in 
which the chairman and members of the staff have worked with us in 
order to try to frame a resolution which we could bring to the floor of 
the Senate today which I think carries forward the legitimate 
requirements imposed upon us in terms of carrying out an investigation 
without straying beyond what most people regard as reasonable bounds.
  Mr. President, with that, I made my statement. I see the 
distinguished Senator from Arkansas, and I would like to yield time to 
him.
  Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Maryland for yielding.
  Mr. President, when I was a student in law school I remember studying 
criminal law. There never had been a lawyer in my family. So I knew 
nothing about any kind of law. But I remember the professor about the 
second day said, ``Remember, the presumption of innocence is the 
hallmark of our system of criminal jurisprudence.'' It is not 
presumption of guilt.
  I asked the question, ``Should I defend somebody if they came into my 
office and told me they were guilty?"
  He said that will be a personal call, but you bear one thing in mind. 
That person may not know whether he or she is guilty under the law. 
They may think they are and are not.
  I am going to vote for this resolution. I have no objection whatever 
to a fair, open hearing giving everybody a chance to answer the 
questions of this committee. But I have heard some names thrown around 
here this morning.
  Mr. President, in cases like this, all you have to do is throw out a 
name. Oftentimes you have destroyed a person or at least destroyed 
their reputation. And there has been entirely too much of that 
surrounding this case.
  So let me admonish my friends in the U.S. Senate, and 
especially on this special committee, lawyers and 
nonlawyers, to ask yourself when you are making some of these speeches 
and you are throwing out names, why did not this happen, why did not 
that happen? Well, hindsight is a wonderful thing. But ask yourself 
when you are throwing names around and wondering whether or not you are 
destroying that person, a perfectly innocent person for life, you ask 
yourself this question: ``How would you like to be in that somebody's 
shoes and hear your name bandied around on the floor of the Senate 
which carries with it the connotation of some wrongdoing or some 
guilt?''
  I hope the Members of this body will rise above that sort of thing, 
and when they say something and use some of these names in regard to 
this hearing, make awfully sure they are not destroying some innocent 
person needlessly and wrongfully.
  I look forward to the hearings. I look forward to the people having 
an opportunity to say what they want to say and answer the questions of 
the Members of this committee. But for God's sakes do not prejudge 
everybody that is going to be called as a witness before they get there 
and have an opportunity to answer the questions.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding me 2 minutes. I had not planned to speak again. But the 
distinguished chairman of the committee made reference to three or four 
individuals who have either pled guilty or have been indicted, et 
cetera. I would like to talk about some of those.
  Neil Ainley worked with a bank in Perryville about 50 miles from 
Little Rock. He pled guilty to four counts, but not one of those counts 
related to Whitewater; not even close to Whitewater. One was his so-
called failure to file with the Internal Revenue Service a withdrawal 
of cash for the 1990 Clinton campaign; nothing whatsoever to do with 
Whitewater.
  The second individual the distinguished chairman mentioned is Chris 
Wade. If I am not mistaken, Chris Wade was a real estate broker I 
believe in Mountain Home near the Whitewater development area. Chris 
Wade, subsequent to these many years of dealing with the lots at 
Whitewater, filed bankruptcy; not related to Whitewater in any way. But 
in the bankruptcy filing he failed to disclose either an asset or a 
debt. I do not know all the facts but this matter is unrelated, totally 
unrelated to Whitewater; no relationship whatsoever to the President 
and Mrs. Clinton. But yet [[Page S6784]] the prosecution has now had 
him plead guilty.
  The third person referred to was Webb Hubbell. We know that case. 
Webb Hubbell has pled guilty. It is a sad day. He is a good friend. But 
it was nothing that related to Whitewater 
Development Corp., absolutely nothing that related to 
Madison Guaranty, nothing whatsoever. Web Hubbell pled guilty to 
overbilling his clients; nothing to do with the RTC, nothing to do with 
Whitewater; totally irrelevant.
  If we continue spreading this dragnet out further, if we go after 
every person that has ever had contact with Bill Clinton or Hillary 
Clinton or James McDougal or whatever, if they have ever made a phone 
call to them, if they have ever borrowed money or given them a campaign 
contribution, Lord only knows how long this investigation is going to 
go. It will go beyond the year 2000.
  I just hope that our colleagues on the Banking Committee will realize 
that we must focus this investigation as it relates to Whitewater and 
to its original mission.
  Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator, ranking member, and 
the distinguished chairman for yielding me this time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back time.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, we yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded, the question is 
on agreeing to the resolution.
  On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk 
will call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] is necessarily absent.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 171 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--3

     Bingaman
     Glenn
     Simon

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  So the resolution (S. Res. 120) was agreed to.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the resolution was agreed to.
  Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THURMOND. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Thurmond pertaining to the introduction of S. 812 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it has been our hope that we could work out 
some agreement on H.R. 483, the so-called Medicare Select bill. I know 
Senator Rockefeller has some concerns about it. What we would like to 
do is bring the bill up, and if anybody has amendments, they can offer 
the amendments and see if we cannot complete action. It is a program 
that expires on June 30. I am not an expert on the program itself. I 
think Senators Packwood and Chafee will be happy to manage the bill. I 
will not do that.
  I would like to ask unanimous consent that we turn to the 
consideration of H.R. 483, the Medicare Select bill, but I am not going 
to make that request yet.
  Is the Senator from West Virginia prepared to object to that?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I am afraid I will have to.

                          ____________________
```