May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6823

1 A USIA poll in mid–1990 found that 87 percent approved (77% ‘‘strongly’’) of the U.S. sending troops

to remove Gen. Noriega and 75 percent considered

the operation a ‘‘liberation’’ rather than an ‘‘invasion.’’ 2 The winner, Perez Balladares, was inaugurated

just a week before interviewing for the poll began on

September 8.

in ten thought it acceptable that the U.S.

provide support for American military forces

in other parts of the hemisphere from Panama bases.

In contrast to widespread doubts expressed

in previous years, half the public thought

the Panamanian government would be able

to manage the canal well when it assumes

full control in the year 2000.

OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES REMAINS VERY

HIGH

Panamanians have faced a variety of political and economic frustrations since 1989

when General Manuel Noriega was removed

from power. These appear to have had little

effect on the favorable views most Panamanians have held of the United States.1 In a

September 1994 poll, eight in ten (82%)—

across all regional and educational levels—

voiced favorable opinions of the United

States. Half (47%) expressed ‘‘very’’ favorable views, while just over one in ten (14%)

regarded the U.S. unfavorably. On two key

U.S. initiatives:

Eight in ten (83%) agreed that the U.S. had

‘‘done much to promote democracy’’ in Panama. Six in ten were in strong agreement,

perhaps influenced in part by the successful

democratic elections in May.2

A similar majority (82%) also thought that

the U.S. had ‘‘done much to promote the economic development’’ of Panama. Again, six

in ten agreed strongly with the statement.

MOST JUDGE THE U.S.-PANAMA RELATIONSHIP

AS GOOD

A great majority believed that relations

between Panama and the United States were

good (89%); four in ten (39%) felt they were

‘‘very’’ good. Seven in ten agreed (72%)—and

half (48%) ‘‘strongly’’ agreed—that the U.S.

treats Panama with ‘‘dignity and respect.’’

(The university-educated were somewhat

less likely to agree with this statement than

Panamanians with less schooling.)

Public opinion was less favorable on two

other aspects of the relationship:

Opinion was split about evenly on whether

the U.S. tries to understand the problems

facing Panama (44% said it does, 49% said it

doesn’t).

A large majority agreed (80%; 58% ‘‘strongly’’) that the U.S. expects Panama to ‘‘give

in to its wishes in matters of importance to

both countries.’’ This perception apparently

did not influence favorable opinions on other

issues, however.

MOST STILL WANT SOME U.S. TROOPS TO

REMAIN—

Panamanians continue to want a U.S. military presence in Panama beyond December,

1999, when the Torrijos-Carter Canal Treaties

stipulate the withdrawal of all American

troops. There has been virtually no change

in public attitudes on this issue since 1991:

Half the public (50%) said the U.S. should

maintain ‘‘about the same number of troops

it has now,’’ while a third (35%) said the

troop presence should remain in ‘‘reduced’’

form. Just one in ten (10%) preferred that all

U.S. troops leave Panama. In general, the

less-educated tended to support the status

quo, while the university-educated were

somewhat more likely to favor a reduced

presence.

FOR SECURITY AND EMPLOYMENT REASONS

When those favoring a continued U.S. presence in Panama were asked why they

thought the troops should stay, most mentioned either the security of the canal (46%)

or employment opportunities generated by

the U.S. base (34%). Political stability was

mentioned by only a few (7%).

In addition, when asked if it would be ‘‘acceptable’’ for U.S. troops to remain in Panama for selected purposes, large majorities

say yes to the following: to provide security

for the canal (87%); to continue the fight

against illegal drugs in the region (87%); to

provide assistance in times of natural disasters or for refugees in Panama (81%); and to

provide support for U.S. military forces in

other parts of the hemisphere (64%).

Only the last purpose, ‘‘support for U.S.

military forces in other parts,’’ was considered ‘‘unacceptable’’ by significant minorities of the general public (27%) and the university-educated (40%).

CONFIDENCE INCREASES ON GOVERNMENT

MANAGEMENT OF CANAL

Public confidence in the Panamanian government’s ability to manage the canal when

it assumes full control in 2000 appears to

have increased in recent years: Half (51%) believed the government would manage the

canal at least fairly well, while four in ten

(42%) thought it would manage the canal

badly. Interestingly, the university-educated

were considerably more optimistic about the

government’s management capacity than the

less-educated (62% to 45%). Polls in 1990 and

1992 had found that large majorities believed

the Panamanian government was paying little or no attention to canal-management

matters and that it would be best if the U.S.

and Panama managed the canal together.

HOW THIS POLL WAS TAKEN

This public opinion survey was commissioned by USIA and conducted by CID-Gallup

of Costa Rica. It is based on face-to-face

interviews with 1200 adults aged 18 and over

in all regions of Panama. Fieldwork took

place September 8–18, 1994. Sample construction and fieldwork were performed by CID in

accordance with USIA instructions. Questions were written by USIA in consultation

with AID and USIS Panama. They were

translated by the contractor, with final review by USIA.

The survey sample was selected by a modified probability method, and covered both

urban and rural populations. When necessary, respondent selection was adjusted for

age, sex, and education to more closely

match estimated population profiles.

Ninety-five times out of one hundred, results from samples of this size will yield results which differ by no more than about 3

percentage points in either direction from

what would have been obtained were it possible to interview everyone in the population. The comparison of smaller subgroups

increases the margin of error. In addition,

the practical difficulties of conducting any

survey of public opinion may introduce other

sources of error.

Additional information on methodology

may be obtained from the analyst.

SENATE RESOLUTION 120—ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL COMMITTEE

fADMINISTERED BY THE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND

URBAN AFFAIRS

Mr. D’AMATO (for himself and Mr.

DOLE) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed

to:

S. RES. 120

Resolved,

SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established a

special committee administered by the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to be known as the ‘‘Special Committee

to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters’’ (hereafter in

this resolution referred to as the ‘‘special

committee’’).

(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the special

committee are—

(1) to conduct an investigation and public

hearings into, and study of, whether improper conduct occurred regarding the way

in which White House officials handled documents in the office of White House Deputy

Counsel Vincent Foster following his death;

(2) to conduct an investigation and public

hearings into, and study of, the following

matters developed during, or arising out of,

the investigation and public hearings concluded by the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs prior to the adoption

of this resolution—

(A) whether any person has improperly

handled confidential Resolution Trust Corporation (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘RTC’’) information relating

to Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association or Whitewater Development Corporation, including whether any person has

improperly communicated such information

to individuals referenced therein;

(B) whether the White House has engaged

in improper contacts with any other agency

or department in the Government with regard to confidential RTC information relating to Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan

Association or Whitewater Development Corporation;

(C) whether the Department of Justice has

improperly handled RTC criminal referrals

relating to Madison Guaranty Savings and

Loan Association or Whitewater Development Corporation;

(D) whether RTC employees have been improperly importuned, prevented, restrained,

or deterred in conducting investigations or

making enforcement recommendations relating to Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan

Association or Whitewater Development Corporation; and

(E) whether the report issued by the Office

of Government Ethics on July 31, 1994, or related transcripts of deposition testimony—

(i) were improperly released to White

House officials or others prior to their testimony before the Committee on Banking,

Housing, and Urban Affairs pursuant to Senate Resolution 229 (103d Congress); or

(ii) were used to communicate to White

House officials or to others confidential RTC

information relating to Madison Guaranty

Savings and Loan Association or Whitewater

Development Corporation;

(3) to conduct an investigation and public

hearings into, and study of, all matters that

have any tendency to reveal the full facts

about—

(A) the operations, solvency, and regulation of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan

Association, and any subsidiary, affiliate, or

other entity owned or controlled by Madison

Guaranty Savings and Loan Association;

(B) the activities, investments, and tax liability of Whitewater Development Corporation and, as related to Whitewater Development Corporation, of its officers, directors,

and shareholders;

(C) the policies and practices of the RTC

and the Federal banking agencies (as that

term is defined in section 3 of the Federal

Deposit Insurance Act) regarding the legal

representation of such agencies with respect

to Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association;
S6824 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 17, 1995

(D) the handling by the RTC, the Office of

Thrift Supervision, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation of civil

or administrative actions against parties regarding Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan

Association;

(E) the sources of funding and the lending

practices of Capital Management Services,

Inc., and its supervision and regulation by

the Small Business Administration, including any alleged diversion of funds to

Whitewater Development Corporation;

(F) the bond underwriting contracts between Arkansas Development Finance Authority and Lasater & Company; and

(G) the lending activities of Perry County

Bank, Perryville, Arkansas, in connection

with the 1990 Arkansas gubernatorial election;

(4) to make such findings of fact as are

warranted and appropriate;

(5) to make such recommendations, including recommendations for legislative, administrative, or other actions, as the special

committee may determine to be necessary or

desirable; and

(6) to fulfill the constitutional oversight

and informational functions of the Congress

with respect to the matters described in this

section.

SEC. 2. MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION OF

THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.

(a) MEMBERSHIP.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The special committee

shall consist of—

(A) the members of the Committee on

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; and

(B) the chairman and ranking member of

the Committee on the Judiciary, or their

designees from the Committee on the Judiciary.

(2) SENATE RULE XXV.—For the purpose of

paragraph 4 of rule XXV of the Standing

Rules of the Senate, service of a Senator as

the chairman or other member of the special

committee shall not be taken into account.

(b) ORGANIZATION OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE.—

(1) CHAIRMAN.—The chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs shall serve as the chairman of the special committee (hereafter in this resolution

referred to as the ‘‘chairman’’).

(2) RANKING MEMBER.—The ranking member of the Committee on Banking, Housing,

and Urban Affairs shall serve as the ranking

member of the special committee (hereafter

in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘ranking

member’’).

(3) QUORUM.—A majority of the members of

the special committee shall constitute a

quorum for the purpose of reporting a matter

or recommendation to the Senate. A majority of the members of the special committee,

or one-third of the members of the special

committee if at least one member of the minority party is present, shall constitute a

quorum for the conduct of other business.

One member of the special committee shall

constitute a quorum for the purpose of taking testimony.

(c) RULES AND PROCEDURES.—Except as

otherwise specifically provided in this resolution, the special committee’s investigation, study, and hearings shall be governed

by the Standing Rules of the Senate and the

Rules of Procedure of the Committee on

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. The

special committee may adopt additional

rules or procedures not inconsistent with

this resolution or the Standing Rules of the

Senate if the chairman and ranking member

agree that such additional rules or procedures are necessary to enable the special

committee to conduct the investigation,

study, and hearings authorized by this resolution. Any such additional rules and procedures shall become effective upon publication in the Congressional Record.

SEC. 3. STAFF OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.

(a) APPOINTMENTS.—To assist the special

committee in the investigation, study, and

hearings authorized by this resolution, the

chairman and the ranking member each may

appoint special committee staff, including

consultants.

(b) ASSISTANCE FROM THE SENATE LEGAL

COUNSEL.—To assist the special committee

in the investigation, study, and hearings authorized by this resolution, the Senate Legal

Counsel and the Deputy Senate Legal Counsel shall work with and under the jurisdiction and authority of the special committee.

(c) ASSISTANCE FROM THE COMPTROLLER

GENERAL.—The Comptroller General of the

United States is requested to provide from

the General Accounting Office whatever personnel or other appropriate assistance as

may be required by the special committee,

or by the chairman or the ranking member.

SEC. 4. PUBLIC ACTIVITIES OF THE SPECIAL

COMMITTEE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Consistent with the

rights of persons subject to investigation and

inquiry, the special committee shall make

every effort to fulfill the right of the public

and the Congress to know the essential facts

and implications of the activities of officials

of the United States Government and other

persons and entities with respect to the matters under investigation and study, as described in section 1.

(b) DUTIES.—In furtherance of the right of

the public and the Congress to know, the

special committee—

(1) shall hold, as the chairman (in consultation with the ranking member) considers appropriate and in accordance with paragraph 5(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing

Rules of the Senate, hearings on specific subjects, subject to consultation and coordination with the independent counsel appointed

pursuant to chapter 40 of title 28, United

States Code, in Division No. 94–1 (D.C. Cir.

August 5, 1994) (hereafter in this resolution

referred to as ‘‘the independent counsel’’);

(2) may make interim reports to the Senate as it considers appropriate; and

(3) shall make a final comprehensive public

report to the Senate which contains—

(A) a description of all relevant factual determinations; and

(B) recommendations for legislation, if

necessary.

SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The special committee

shall do everything necessary and appropriate under the laws and the Constitution of

the United States to conduct the investigation, study, and hearings authorized by section 1.

(b) EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY.—The special

committee may exercise all of the powers

and responsibilities of a committee under

rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate and section 705 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, including the following:

(1) SUBPOENA POWERS.—To issue subpoenas

or orders for the attendance of witnesses or

for the production of documentary or physical evidence before the special committee. A

subpoena or order may be authorized by the

special committee or by the chairman with

the agreement of the ranking member, and

may be issued by the chairman or any other

member of the special committee designated

by the chairman, and may be served by any

person designated by the chairman or the authorized member anywhere within or outside

of the borders of the United States to the

full extent permitted by law. The chairman,

or any other member of the special committee, is authorized to administer oaths to any

witnesses appearing before the special committee. If a return on a subpoena or order for

the production of documentary or physical

evidence is incomplete or accompanied by an

objection, the chairman (in consultation

with the ranking member) may convene a

meeting or hearing to determine the adequacy of the return and to rule on the objection. At a meeting or hearing on such a return, one member of the special committee

shall constitute a quorum. The special committee shall not initiate procedures leading

to civil or criminal enforcement of a subpoena unless the person or entity to whom

the subpoena is directed refuses to produce

the required documentary or physical evidence after having been ordered and directed

to do so.

(2) COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.—To employ

and fix the compensation of such clerical, investigatory, legal, technical, and other assistants as the special committee, or the

chairman or the ranking member, considers

necessary or appropriate.

(3) MEETINGS.—To sit and act at any time

or place during sessions, recesses, and adjournment periods of the Senate.

(4) HEARINGS.—To hold hearings, take testimony under oath, and receive documentary

or physical evidence relating to the matters

and questions it is authorized to investigate

or study. Unless the chairman and the ranking member otherwise agree, the questioning

of a witness or a panel of witnesses at a hearing shall be limited to one initial 30-minute

turn each for the chairman and the ranking

member, or their designees, including majority and minority staff, and thereafter to 10-

minute turns by each member of the special

committee if 5 or more members are present,

and to 15-minute turns by each member of

the special committee if fewer than 5 members are present. A member may be permitted further questions of the witness or

panel of witnesses, either by using time that

another member then present at the hearing

has yielded for that purpose during the yielding member’s turn, or by using time allotted

after all members have been given an opportunity to question the witness or panel of

witnesses. At all times, unless the chairman

and the ranking member otherwise agree,

the questioning shall alternate back and

forth between members of the majority

party and members of the minority party. In

their discretion, the chairman and the ranking member, respectively, may designate

majority or minority staff to question a witness or a panel of witnesses at a hearing during time yielded by a member of the chairman’s or the ranking member’s party then

present at the hearing for his or her turn.

(5) TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES.—To require

by subpoena or order the attendance, as a

witness before the special committee or at a

deposition, of any person who may have

knowledge or information concerning any of

the matters that the special committee is

authorized to investigate and study.

(6) IMMUNITY.—To grant a witness immunity under sections 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. Not later than 10

days before the special committee seeks a

Federal court order for a grant of immunity

by the special committee, the Senate Legal

Counsel shall cause to be delivered to the

independent counsel a written request asking the independent counsel promptly to inform the special committee in writing if, in

the judgment of the independent counsel, the

grant of immunity would interfere with the

ability of the independent counsel successfully to prosecute criminal violations. The

Senate Legal Counsel’s written request of
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6825

the independent counsel required by this

paragraph shall be in addition to all notice

requirements set forth in sections 6002 and

6005 of title 18, United States Code.

(7) DEPOSITIONS.—To take depositions and

other testimony under oath anywhere within

the United States, to issue orders that require witnesses to answer written interrogatories under oath, and to make application

for the issuance of letters rogatory. All depositions shall be conducted jointly by majority and minority staff of the special committee. A witness at a deposition shall be examined upon oath administered by a member of

the special committee or an individual authorized by local law to administer oaths,

and a complete transcription or electronic

recording of the deposition shall be made.

Questions shall be propounded first by majority staff of the special committee and

then by minority staff of the special committee. Any subsequent round of questioning

shall proceed in the same order. Objections

by the witness as to the form of questions

shall be noted for the record. If a witness objects to a question and refuses to answer on

the basis of relevance or privilege, the special committee staff may proceed with the

deposition, or may, at that time or at a subsequent time, seek a ruling on the objection

from the chairman. If the chairman overrules the objection, the chairman may order

and direct the witness to answer the question, but the special committee shall not initiate procedures leading to civil or criminal

enforcement unless the witness refuses to

answer after having been ordered and directed to answer.

(8) DELEGATIONS TO STAFF.—To issue commissions and to notice depositions for staff

members to examine witnesses and to receive evidence under oath administered by

an individual authorized by local law to administer oaths. The special committee, or

the chairman with the concurrence of the

ranking member, may delegate to designated

staff members of the special committee the

power to issue deposition notices authorized

pursuant to this paragraph.

(9) INFORMATION FROM OTHER SOURCES.—To

require by subpoena or order—

(A) any department, agency, entity, officer, or employee of the United States Government;

(B) any person or entity purporting to act

under color or authority of State or local

law; or

(C) any private person, firm, corporation,

partnership, or other organization;

to produce for consideration by the special

committee or for use as evidence in the investigation, study, or hearings of the special

committee, any book, check, canceled check,

correspondence, communication, document,

financial record, paper, physical evidence,

photograph, record, recording, tape, or any

other material relating to any of the matters

or questions that the special committee is

authorized to investigate and study which

any such person or entity may possess or

control.

(10) RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE SENATE.—To

make to the Senate any recommendations,

by report or resolution, including recommendations for criminal or civil enforcement, which the special committee may consider appropriate with respect to—

(A) the willful failure or refusal of any person to appear before it, or at a deposition, or

to answer interrogatories, in compliance

with a subpoena or order;

(B) the willful failure or refusal of any person to answer questions or give testimony

during the appearance of that person as a

witness before the special committee, or at a

deposition, or in response to interrogatories;

or

(C) the willful failure or refusal of—

(i) any officer or employee of the United

States Government;

(ii) any person or entity purporting to act

under color or authority of State or local

law; or

(iii) any private person, partnership, firm,

corporation, or organization;

to produce before the special committee, or

at a deposition, or at any time or place designated by the committee, any book, check,

canceled check, correspondence, communication, document, financial record, paper,

physical evidence, photograph, record, recording, tape, or any other material in compliance with any subpoena or order.

(11) CONSULTANTS.—To procure the temporary or intermittent services of individual

consultants, or organizations thereof.

(12) OTHER GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL.—To

use, on a reimbursable basis and with the

prior consent of the Government department

or agency concerned, the services of the personnel of such department or agency.

(13) OTHER CONGRESSIONAL STAFF.—To use,

with the prior consent of any member of the

Senate or the chairman or the ranking member of any other Senate committee or the

chairman or ranking member of any subcommittee of any committee of the Senate,

the facilities or services of the appropriate

members of the staff of such member of the

Senate or other Senate committee or subcommittee, whenever the special committee

or the chairman or the ranking member considers that such action is necessary or appropriate to enable the special committee to

conduct the investigation, study, and hearings authorized by this resolution.

(14) ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE.—To permit any members of the special committee, staff director, counsel, or

other staff members or consultants designated by the chairman or the ranking

member, access to any data, evidence, information, report, analysis, document, or

paper—

(A) that relates to any of the matters or

questions that the special committee is authorized to investigate or study under this

resolution;

(B) that is in the custody or under the control of any department, agency, entity, officer, or employee of the United States Government, including those which have the

power under the laws of the United States to

investigate any alleged criminal activities or

to prosecute persons charged with crimes

against the United States without regard to

the jurisdiction or authority of any other

Senate committee or subcommittee; and

(C) that will assist the special committee

to prepare for or conduct the investigation,

study, and hearings authorized by this resolution.

(15) REPORTS OF VIOLATIONS OF LAW.—To report possible violations of any law to appropriate Federal, State, or local authorities.

(16) EXPENDITURES.—To expend, to the extent that the special committee determines

necessary and appropriate, any money made

available to the special committee by the

Senate to carry out this resolution.

(17) TAX RETURN INFORMATION.—To inspect

and receive, in accordance with the procedures set forth in sections 6103(f)(3) and

6104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of

1986, any tax return or tax return information, held by the Secretary of the Treasury,

if access to the particular tax-related information sought is necessary to the ability of

the special committee to carry out section

1(b)(3)(B).

SEC. 6. PROTECTION OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

(a) NONDISCLOSURE.—No member of the special committee or the staff of the special

committee shall disclose, in whole or in part

or by way of summary, to any person other

than another member of the special committee or other staff of the special committee,

for any purpose or in connection with any

proceeding, judicial or otherwise, any testimony taken, including the names of witnesses testifying, or material presented, in

depositions or at closed hearings, or any confidential materials or information, unless

authorized by the special committee or the

chairman in concurrence with the ranking

member.

(b) STAFF NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT.—All

members of the staff of the special committee with access to confidential information

within the control of the special committee

shall, as a condition of employment, agree in

writing to abide by the conditions of this

section and any nondisclosure agreement

promulgated by the special committee that

is consistent with this section.

(c) SANCTIONS.—

(1) MEMBER SANCTIONS.—The case of any

Senator who violates the security procedures

of the special committee may be referred to

the Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate for investigation and the imposition of

sanctions in accordance with the rules of the

Senate.

(2) STAFF SANCTIONS.—Any member of the

staff of the special committee who violates

the security procedures of the special committee shall immediately be subject to removal from office or employment with the

special committee or such other sanction as

may be provided in any rule issued by the

special committee consistent with section

2(c).

(d) STAFF DEFINED.—For purposes of this

section, the term ‘‘staff of the special committee’’ includes—

(1) all employees of the special committee;

(2) all staff designated by the members of

the special committee to work on special

committee business;

(3) all Senate staff assigned to special committee business pursuant to section 5(b)(13);

(4) all officers and employees of the Office

of Senate Legal Counsel who are requested

to work on special committee business; and

(5) all detailees and consultants to the special committee.

SEC. 7. RELATION TO OTHER INVESTIGATIONS.

(a) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this section

are—

(1) to expedite the thorough conduct of the

investigation, study, and hearings authorized by this resolution;

(2) to promote efficiency among all the

various investigations underway in all

branches of the United States Government;

and

(3) to engender a high degree of confidence

on the part of the public regarding the conduct of such investigation, study, and hearings.

(b) SPECIAL COMMITTEE ACTIONS.—To carry

out the purposes stated in subsection (a), the

special committee is encouraged—

(1) to obtain relevant information concerning the status of the investigation of the

independent counsel, to assist in establishing

a hearing schedule for the special committee; and

(2) to coordinate, to the extent practicable,

the activities of the special committee with

the investigation of the independent counsel.

SEC. 8. SALARIES AND EXPENSES.

A sum equal to not more than $950,000 for

the period beginning on the date of adoption

of this resolution and ending on February 29,

1996, shall be made available from the contingent fund of the Senate out of the Account for Expenses for Inquiries and Investigations for payment of salaries and other

expenses of the special committee under this

resolution, which shall include not more
S6826 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 17, 1995

than $750,000 for the procurement of the services of individual consultants or organizations thereof, in accordance with section

5(b)(11). Payment of expenses shall be disbursed upon vouchers approved by the chairman, except that vouchers shall not be required for the disbursement of salaries paid

at an annual rate.

SEC. 9. REPORTS; TERMINATION.

(a) COMPLETION OF DUTIES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The special committee

shall make every reasonable effort to complete, not later than February 1, 1996, the investigation, study, and hearings authorized

by section 1.

(2) EVALUATION OF PROGRESS.—The special

committee shall evaluate the progress and

status of the investigation, study, and hearings authorized by section 1 and, not later

than January 15, 1996, make recommendations with respect to the authorization of additional funds for a period following February 29, 1996. If the special committee requests the authorization of additional funds

for a period following February 29, 1996, the

Majority Leader and the Democratic Leader

shall meet and determine the appropriate

timetable and procedures for the Senate to

vote on any such request.

(b) FINAL REPORT.—

(1) SUBMISSION.—The special committee

shall promptly submit a final public report

to the Senate of the results of the investigation, study, and hearings conducted by the

special committee pursuant to this resolution, together with its findings and any recommendations.

(2) CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.—The final

report of the special committee may be accompanied by such confidential annexes as

are necessary to protect confidential information.

(3) CONCLUSION OF BUSINESS.—After submission of its final report, the special committee shall promptly conclude its business and

close out its affairs.

(c) RECORDS.—Upon the conclusion of the

special committee’s business and the closing

out of its affairs, all records, files, documents, and other materials in the possession,

custody, or control of the special committee

shall remain under the control of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

SEC. 10. COMMITTEE JURISDICTION AND RULE

XXV.

The jurisdiction of the special committee

is granted pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of

rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate relating to the jurisdiction of the standing committees of the Senate.

SENATE RESOLUTION 121—RELATING TO THE ANGOLA PEACE

fPROCESS

Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mrs.

KASSEBAUM, Mr. HELMS, Mr. PELL, and

Mr. SIMON) submitted the following

resolution; which was considered and

agreed to:

S. RES. 121

Whereas Angola has suffered one of the

most violent and longest-running civil wars;

Whereas the United States was actively engaged in the war in Angola, has provided

more than $200 million in humanitarian assistance to Angola since 1992, and has been a

key facilitator on the ongoing peace negotiations;

Whereas Angola is the last civil conflict in

southern Africa, and regional leaders including South African President Nelson Mandela

consider its resolution to be a top priority;

Whereas an enduring peace in Angola, a potentially wealthy country that is central to

regional stability and economic development, is in the national interest of the United States;

Whereas the Government of Angola and

National Union for the Total Independence

of Angola (UNITA) entered into the Lusaka

Protocol in November 1994 to secure a U.N.-

supervised peace settlement;

Whereas the United Nations Security

Council voted in February to send a U.N.

peacekeeping mission to Angola to monitor

and enforce the peace process, and more than

600 international monitors are deployed

throughout the country;

Whereas continuing progress toward peace

makes it more likely that further deployment of UNAVEM III will occur soon;

Whereas the meeting between President

Eduardo dos Santos and Dr. Jonas Savimbi

on May 6, 1995, at which both parties reiterated their commitment to the Lusaka Protocol, demonstrated that they possess the essential political will to resolve outstanding

issues, and encouraged all who want peace in

Angola;

Whereas achieving a lasting peace will require that all Angolans work together to

overcome bitter legacies of war, which include a devastated infrastructure, millions

of unexploded landmines, a profound distrust

between the parties, weakened civil institutions, a crippled economy, and a generation

of young Angolans who have never known a

peaceful, civil society;

Whereas strong leadership is essential to

ensure that the wealth of Angola, long spent

on war, now is used to consolidate peace.

Now therefore be it

Resolved That the Senate:

(1) Congratulates the people of Angola for

the courageous and determined steps their

leaders have taken in support of peace;

(2) Urges all parties in Angola to continue

to strengthen their commitment to the

Lusaka process, which constitutes the last,

and best, chance for securing an enduring

peace;

(3) Affirms that the United States will hold

both Angolan parties responsible for abiding

by their commitment to peace; and

(4) Calls upon the international community to remain actively engaged in support

of national reconciliation, removal of landmines, economic development, and democratization in Angola.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today

I am introducing a resolution, in conjunction with the distinguished chair

of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, as well as the chairman and

ranking member of the Senate Foreign

Relations Committee, and others,

which congratulates the people of Angola for the courageous steps their

leaders have taken recently in the

name of peace and reconciliation in

Angola. This has been an arduous and

painful process, but the recent meeting

between President dos Santos and Dr.

Jonas Savimbi, in addition to the deployment of the U.N. operation, signifies a dramatic breakthrough which

may unlock the door to peace in Angola.

As we all know, Angola has been engulfed in civil war ever since its independence from Portugal in 1975. It not

only suffered vast dislocation and neglect following the colonial occupation, but also it became a classic superpower playground as Angola struggled

to find for its postcolonial identity.

Throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s South

Africa and Zaire launched frequent

military incursions in support of the

Government of Angola, while mercenaries from Europe and elsewhere

helped the rebel forces of UNITA and

Dr. Jonas Savimbi fight from the bush.

37,000 Cuban troops supported the government and the MPLA party, and

their involvement sparked more independence wars in Namibia. The United

States offered covert aid to UNITA in

an effort to contain communism in Africa for ‘‘national security’’ purposes.

In addition, there were secessionist

threats from the northern, oil-rich

province of Cabinda, which was, ironically, home to many U.S. oil companies throughout the war.

This war killed over 1 million people,

and displaced and disabled millions

more. Cities and fields are completely

destroyed, and 9 to 20 million

unexploded landmines, supplied by outside powers, lace the countryside.

Beautiful coastal lands and mineralrich areas not only lay undeveloped,

but have been damaged and destroyed

by warfare. Bitter war enmities between the MPLA and UNITA have created long-lasting rifts which will take

at least a full generation to heal.

Young boys, who from the age of 10

have been armed and fighting, are dislocated from their families. An entire

people has never known civil society.

It was with the end of the cold war,

the end of the United States-Soviet rivalry, that peace actually had a chance

in Angola. When Congress prohibited

military aid to Angola, Cuban troops

withdrew, and South Africa began to

change, negotiations were finally able

to begin between the MPLA and

UNITA. The peace process of 1991 resulted in the Bicesse accords, and led

to elections. But then disputed returns,

and militant attacks on the MPLA by

Savimbi, destroyed the process.

By 1992, serious negotiations had

begun again. Thanks to the relentless

efforts of U.N. Special Representative

Bedouin Beyh, United States Ambassador to Angola, Edward de Jarnette,

and others—including South African

Nelson Mandela—the Lusaka accords

were finally concluded on November 5,

1994.

The accords secure a U.N. supervised

peace settlement, which includes the

deployment of 5,600 U.N. peacekeeping

troops, as well as 350 military observers and 260 civilian police. It is intended to enable national reconciliation, demilitarization, economic development, and democratization of

Angloa. It will also enable the continued delivery of massive food lifts,

which is keeping hundreds of thousands

of people alive as the society builds a

peacetime environment.

There have been some glitches in the

peace process, and there have been

many incidents we thought Angola

would not survive. But the peace process made a big step last week when

President dos Santos and Dr. Savimbi

finally met face-to-face in Lusaka.