May 26, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7607

The Sixty Minutes report was devastating.

BATF agent Michelle Roberts told the television program that after she and some male

agents finished a surveillance in a parking

lot, ‘‘I was held against the hood of my car

and had my clothes ripped at by two other

agents.’’ Agent Roberts claimed she was in

fear of her life. The agent who verified Ms.

Roberts’ complaints claims that he was pressured to resign from BATF. Another agent,

Sandra Hernandez, said her complaints about

sexual harassment were at first ignored by

BATF, and she was then demoted to file

clerk and transferred to a lower-ranking office. BATF agent Bob Hoffman said ‘‘[T]he

people I put in jail have more honor than the

top administration in this organization.’’

Agent Lou Tomasello said, ‘‘I took an oath.

And the thing I find totally abhorrent and

disgusting is these higher-level people took

that same oath and they violate the basic

principles and tenets of the Constitution and

the laws and simple ethics and morality.’’

Black BATF agents have complained about

discrimination in assignments.

Abolishing BATF is no solution, for abolition would leave in place the federal alcohol,

tobacco and firearms laws, and transfer their

enforcement responsibility to some other

agency. It is the very nature of the

victimless crimes—such as laws criminalizing the peaceful possession or manufacture

of alcohol or firearms—which lead to enforcement abuses. As long as the consensual

offense laws remain in the U.S. Code, abusive

enforcement is likely, as has been the historical norm since the enactment of such laws.

Removing most firearm (and alcohol and tobacco) laws from the federal statutes does

not imply that alcohol, tobacco, and firearms should be subject to no legal controls.

Rather, the control of those objects can continue to be achieved at the state level, without a redundant layer of federal control and

the manifold temptations of federal abuse.

Since 1985, BATF’s size has increased 50%,

from 2,900 employees to 4,300. In a time of

vast budget deficits, simply restoring BATF

to its former size might save both taxpayer

dollars and taxpayer lives.

While BATF’s performance at Waco was

disgraceful, two facts should be kept in

mind: First, the BATF has a large number of

honorable, admirable employees who have

quietly gone about their work for years enforcing federal regulations applicable to gun

dealers, and enforcing federal laws against

possession of guns by persons with felony

convictions for violent crime. Misbehavior of

some BATF staff (and some BATF leadership) should not be taken as proof that all

BATF employees are bad.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the current United States Code provides emergency authority that is totally adequate to resolve the problems that are

raised by the distinguished Senator

from Connecticut. I have chatted with

him about the fact that I am going to

move to table his amendment.

I do so move to table his amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and

nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a

sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question occurs on the motion to table

amendment No. 1200, offered by the

Senator from Connecticut [Mr.

LIEBERMAN].

The yeas and nays have been ordered

and the clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. DOMENICI],

the Senator from Texas [Mr. GRAMM],

the Senator from North Carolina [Mr.

HELMS], the Senator from Texas [Mrs.

HUTCHISON], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. INHOFE], the Senator from

Arizona [Mr. KYL], the Senator from

Arizona [Mr. MCCAIN], the Senator

from Alaska [Mr. MURKOWSKI], and the

Senator from Delaware [Mr. ROTH] are

necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from California [Mrs. BOXER], the

Senator from New Jersey [Mr. BRADLEY], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr.

BRYAN], the Senator from California

[Mrs. FEINSTEIN], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. KERREY], the Senator from

Massachusetts [Mr. KERRY], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. LEAHY], and

the Senator from Arkansas [Mr.

PRYOR] are necessarily absent.

I also announce that the Senator

from Wisconsin [Mr. FEINGOLD], the

Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. KOHL],

and the Senator from Georgia [Mr.

NUNN] are absent because of attending

funeral.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there

any other Senators in the Chamber

who desire to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 52,

nays 28, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 233 Leg.]

YEAS—52

Abraham

Ashcroft

Baucus

Bennett

Bond

Brown

Burns

Byrd

Campbell

Chafee

Coats

Cochran

Cohen

Coverdell

Craig

D’Amato

DeWine

Dole

Faircloth

Frist

Gorton

Grams

Grassley

Gregg

Hatch

Hatfield

Heflin

Jeffords

Kassebaum

Kempthorne

Lott

Lugar

Mack

McConnell

Moseley-Braun

Nickles

Packwood

Pressler

Reid

Santorum

Sarbanes

Shelby

Simon

Simpson

Smith

Snowe

Specter

Stevens

Thomas

Thompson

Thurmond

Warner

NAYS—28

Akaka

Biden

Bingaman

Breaux

Bumpers

Conrad

Daschle

Dodd

Dorgan

Exon

Ford

Glenn

Graham

Harkin

Hollings

Inouye

Johnston

Kennedy

Lautenberg

Levin

Lieberman

Mikulski

Moynihan

Murray

Pell

Robb

Rockefeller

Wellstone

NOT VOTING—20

Boxer

Bradley

Bryan

Domenici

Feingold

Feinstein

Gramm

Helms

Hutchison

Inhofe

Kerrey

Kerry

Kohl

Kyl

Leahy

McCain

Murkowski

Nunn

Pryor

Roth

So the motion to lay on the table the

amendment (No. 1200) was agreed to.

Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, has the

time expired on the Pastore rule?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is still operating under the Pastore

rule.

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent

that I may speak out of order for not to

exceed 4 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection? Without objection, the Senator is recognized to speak out of order

for 4 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I address

MEDIA DOUBLE STANDARD

fthe Senate today with respect to the

May 22, 1995, Washington Post style

section story by Howard Kurtz. The

substance of the article was to highlight the double standard adopted by

columnist George Will in criticizing

the Clinton administration’s decision

to add tariffs to Japanese luxury cars.

In lampooning the Clinton White

House for taking the tough trade stand

with Japan, Mr. Will failed to mention

his wife’s relationship as a lobbyist for

the Japanese automobile industry. According to the article, Mr. Will was

quite indignant to think that anyone

would suspect his motives. If a Member

of Congress or an administration official in a similar situation had taken

such a position, you can be sure that

the press, including Mr. Will, would

have taken him or her to task. Tomes

would have been written about the

abuse of power and corruption of the

system. Efforts would have been made

to discredit and to embarrass the individual. This railing would have gone on

until either an apology was forthcoming or, in some cases, until a resignation was tendered.

It is exactly this type of lack of an

ethical barometer on the part of the

media that tips the scales of fairness in

reporting. Members of the legislative,

executive, and judicial branches must

file regular financial reports and must

abide by stringent rules of ethics. This

is only proper in matters involving the

public’s trust.

My argument rests with the total

lack of parity in the communications

industry. There are no comparable ethical standards or rules which govern

the media. This is true despite the fact

that the levels of power and persuasion

are as great or greater with the press

than they are with those in public service. Until some effort is made to level

the playing field and throw out the

bias, the rampant cynicism and distrust on the part of the people will continue. Nothing points more dramatically to the need for change than Mr.

Will’s arrogance and lack of candor in

this instance.

I thank Mr. Kurtz for bringing this

matter to the attention of the American public, and I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post article

be printed in the RECORD. I suggest

that all Senators who have not read it,

do so.

I yield the floor.

There being no objection, the article

was ordered to be printed in the

RECORD, as follows:
S7608 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 26, 1995

[From the Washington Post, May 23, 1995]

A CONFLICT OF WILL’S?—PUNDIT KEPT QUIET

ABOUT WIFE’S ROLE AS LOBBYIST

(By Howard Kurtz)

In his syndicated column Friday, George F.

Will assailed the Clinton administration’s

proposed tariffs on Japanese luxury cars,

calling them ‘‘trade-annihilating tariffs to

coerce another government into coercing its

automobile industry.’’

He repeated his criticism Sunday on ABC’s

‘‘This Week With David Brinkley,’’ calling

the 100 percent tariffs ‘‘illegal’’ and ‘‘a subsidy for Mercedes dealerships.’’

What Will did not mention is that his wife,

Mari Maseng Will, is a registered foreign

agent for the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association. Her firm, Maseng Communications, was paid $198,721 last year to lobby

for the industry.

Will dismissed any suggestion of a conflict.

‘‘I was for free trade long before I met my

wife. End of discussion,’’ he said yesterday.

‘‘There are people in Washington whose entire life consists of raising questions. To me,

it’s beyond boring. I don’t understand the

whole mentality.

‘‘What’s to disclose? What would I say?

That one of my wife’s clients agrees with my

long-standing views on free trade? Good

God,’’ he said.

But several newspaper editors said Will

should have disclosed his wife’s paid lobbying. ‘‘I’m very distressed,’’ said Dennis A.

Britton, editor of the Chicago Sun-Times.

‘‘That’s one of those material facts an editor

should know before placing a story in the

paper. That’s like a financial writer having a

stake in a company he’s writing about.’’

Will did disclose on the Brinkley show last

month that his wife was advising Sen. Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) in his presidential campaign and would become the campaign’s

communications director. Will, who mentioned this before questioning Dole, said he

did so only ‘‘because ABC asked me to.’’ He

said his wife’s role would not inhibit him in

commenting on the Dole campaign.

Will is probably the nation’s most prominent conservative writer. He appears on the

Brinkley show, opines in Newsweek and

writes a newspaper column that is syndicated to 475 papers by The Washington

Post Writers Group. Maseng served as White

House communications director and assistant secretary of transportation during the

Reagan administration. The two were married in 1991.

The Washington Post was initially told of

Maseng’s lobbying by a Clinton administration staffer. The administration has been

trying to deflect criticism that the tariffs

would hurt American consumers and some

car dealers. Will wrote that the 13 models of

Japanese cars would be ‘‘unsalable in the

land of the free and the home of the brave.’’

According to Maseng’s Justice Department

filings, her firm is paid $200 an hour to deal

with reporters, follow legislation, place advertising, issue press releases and draft op-ed

pieces with such titles as ‘‘Selling Cars in

Japan: It Isn’t About Access’’ and ‘‘Fixing

the Outcome of Trade With Japan Is a Dangerous Way to Do Business.’’ The firm also

sought to arrange for the industry’s top

Washington lobbyist to meet the Chicago

Tribune editorial board, tried to place an

opinion piece in the Washington Times and

drafted letters to the New York Times and

Detroit Free Press.

Maseng Communications began representing the Japanese in 1992 and was paid $47,422

the following year. Maseng did not respond

to a request for comment.

‘‘What Maseng provides is the strategic

public affairs direction for the communications program,’’ said Charles Powers, a senior vice president at Porter/Novelli, another

Washington public relations firm that works

for the automakers in partnership with

Maseng’s company.

Stephen Isaacs, associate dean of Columbia

University’s journalism school, said a

spouse’s employment ‘‘does matter. The

same kind of conflict questions that apply to

us also apply to our extended families. He

made a mistake. . . . The fact that he

doesn’t see a problem shows he just doesn’t

get it.’’

Isaacs also cited a 1980 incident in which

Will helped Ronald Reagan prepare for a

presidential campaign debate and then

praised Reagan’s performance on television

without disclosing his own role.

As for last week’s column, some editorial

page editors also expressed concern. ‘‘I would

have preferred to have known in advance,’’

said Brent Larkin, editorial director of the

Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Dorrance Smith, executive producer of

‘‘This Week With David Brinkley,’’ said he

was not aware of the connection. He said he

had urged Will to disclose his wife’s employment with Dole, but that a round-table discussion is ‘‘a different context’’ from interviewing a senator.

‘‘I’m not sure where you draw the line,’’

Smith said. ‘‘I don’t know who Cokie Roberts’s brother’s clients are.’’ Roberts, another Brinkley panelist, is the sister of

Washington lobbyist Tommy Boggs.

Alan Shearer, general manager of The

Washington Post Writers Group, said he saw

no evidence that Maseng’s employment ‘‘has

affected George’s judgment. . . . A lot of us

have spouses who have careers of their own,

and whether that requires us to disclose everything they do is a difficult question. It

doesn’t bother me.’’

Will, for his part, doesn’t see what the fuss

is about. He says he has never discussed the

issue with his wife.

‘‘My views on free trade are well known

and antecedent to Mari’s involvement with

whatever the client is,’’ Will said. ‘‘It’s just

too silly.’’

Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

COMPREHENSIVE TERRORISM

PREVENTION ACT

fThe Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it seems

rather obvious we are not going to be

able to complete action on the

antiterrorism bill, S. 735. I have been

notified that there are at least probably 60 or more amendments to a bill

that we thought the President requested and that we wanted to cooperate with the President to try to get to

him, as I indicated, before the Memorial Day recess.

But, in view of the 50-some votes we

had on the budget, we lost a day, and in

view of the list of amendments, even

though there may be a number of

amendments which may not be offered,

it is now very clear that we cannot

complete action on this bill today. I

think the next best thing is to try to

get some agreement to at least limit

the number of amendments.

I do not know how you can have

many more than 60, but I assume staff

listening in could probably get it up to

90 in 20 minutes if they really tried.

But I would just say to the President

and particularly the people of Oklahoma, those who have suffered the

tragedy, that we are serious about this

legislation. I am not certain whether

we can finish on the Monday we are

back. I do not want to delay telecommunications. We have promised

and promised both Senator PRESSLER

and Senator HOLLINGS we would address that very important issue. So I

will have to decide what course of action to pursue.

I know the House has not acted on

this, so even if we did complete action

today, we could not get the bill to the

President until after the Memorial Day

recess.

And having discussed this with the

Democratic leader, I think many of

these amendments on both lists are

just—there are some that say ‘‘relevant.’’ We do not have any idea what

it is or even what it is relevant to. But

it is relevant as far as not being able to

finish the bill if everybody intends to

offer their amendments. One Member

has 10 amendments; another on our

side has 7, or whatever.

So I am going to ask consent that we

enter into some agreement that we

limit the number of amendments to

those that have been identified, if that

is satisfactory with the Democratic

leader.

Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Democratic leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, like

the majority leader, I also would like

to be able to accommodate the schedule to move this legislation as quickly

as we can. We need to send a clear message, not only to the people of Oklahoma, but others as well, that this is

important.

As the majority leader knows, we

just received a copy of the draft last

night. As I understand it, it has not yet

been printed in the RECORD. We will be

taking a closer look at it.

I think, in spite of the fact that there

may be some questions relating to the

draft itself, we would be willing to

enter into an agreement on the list of

amendments so we can work through

them. There are a lot of amendments

there that may or may not be offered,

but I think it does protect Senators

since they have not had the opportunity to look at it more carefully.

Certainly, over the course of the next

several days, everyone will do that.

But we want to expedite our progress

on this and, hopefully, in the not-toodistant future, we can resolve what

outstanding differences remain and

come to a point where we can vote on

final passage.

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I hope we

can obtain a consent agreement and

the managers of the bill can stay here.

There may be amendments on each side

that can be taken, indicating we are

making an effort to move forward, even

though we have only had one vote