Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize Theodore O. Wallin, Ph.D., for his outstanding contributions and achievements in the fields of transportation and education. Professor Wallin has served as the director of the Franklin program in transportation and distribution management, chairman of the marketing, transportation and distribution management department, and associate professor of transportation and marketing at Syracuse University. Professor Wallin is recognized as a world renowned expert in the areas of transportation economics, management, and public policy, and has published numerous articles in several scholastic journals. He has worked for the development of the Salzberg Transportation Institute at Syracuse University and has authored a number of research projects for New York State and Federal governmental agencies. In addition to his research, Professor Wallin has served as president of the Alpha Chapter of Delta Nu Alpha International Professional Transportation fraternity and was recognized by Nu Alpha as the Outstanding Man of the Year in 1984. As a member of the American Society of Transportation and Logistics, the American Marketing Association, the Council of Logistics Management, editorial board for the Transportation Journal and Journal of Transportation Management, Dr. Wallin has contributed considerably to the Department of Management at Syracuse University. He has been recognized as an outstanding faculty member several times during his tenure at the university. As United States Senator from New York and an alumni of Syracuse, I am particularly pleased to wish Dr. Theodore Wallin success as he continues his distinguished career as the resident director of the newly established Syracuse University Division of International Programs Abroad in Hong Kong.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, for the past 16 days our Democratic colleagues have used the Senate rules to block consideration of a resolution to provide additional funds, funds for the Whitewater special committee. That is simply wrong. The Senate has a duty to get the full facts about Whitewater. The Democrats are filibustering, for 16 days now, to prevent the Senate from voting on whether or not to provide additional funds for the Whitewater Committee. So that the record is clear, we must understand how much we are asking for. We are asking $600,000. In addition, I have agreed to allow us to have a vote to curtail the committee's investigation to 4 months. They have said they wanted to negotiate with us. We are willing to negotiate. We have heard nothing except what is almost contemptuous because it says we would have to conclude our public hearings by April 5. That is silly. The majority is committed to getting all the facts about Whitewater. It is now clear that our Democratic colleagues simply are not. Let me ask the question: If Whitewater is much to-do about nothing, as the White House claims, why are Democrats afraid of the hearings? Why are they afraid to let them go forward? What are they afraid of? What does the White House want to hide from the American people? You cannot say it is much to-do about nothing, and then oppose having the hearings. Second, it is absolutely disingenuous, as some have claimed, that this has cost the American people $30 million. The fact is our committee has spent about $900,000, and a total of about $450,000 last year; so, that when they come up with this $30 million, in an attempt to ascribe it to the work of the committee, it is disingenuous and they are playing fast and loose with the facts. There are a number of unanswered questions. Let me just pose some of them. Who put the Rose Law Firm building records in the White House residence? How do you think they got there? How? Do you think the plumber brought them there? The carpenter who was making repairs? The men who were working to fix the air-conditioning? Do we really believe they brought it there? Do we think the butler brought them there? Or, rather, did these records--that were being worked on by Mr. Foster and contained his handwritten notes in the margins--come from Mr. Foster's office? Did they come there at the explicit directions of the First Lady to her chief of staff? We have had the testimony of a young man, Mr. Castleton, who says that he was told that he was bringing the records up because Mrs. Clinton wanted to look at them. Indeed, if she did not look at them as she claimed, how did the records wind up there? If all the records were just simply shipped off to her lawyers, how do they get over there? So we have a question as to how did these billing records mysteriously appear. Remember, those records were subpoenaed by the special prosecutor. How did they get into the White House residence? My colleague from North Carolina has said that one of the most secure rooms in the United States of America would be one of the rooms in the residence of the President and First Lady. Incredible. Another question is, did the Clintons know that James McDougal was covering their Whitewater losses for them? He is presently under trial in Little Rock, AR. He ran a bank that was a criminal enterprise--we found that out--Madison Savings & Loan. Some of the bankers I have met recently said, ``Senator, please do not say it was a bank; it was a savings and loan.'' And, indeed, they lost over $60 million worth of taxpayers' money. If one follows just some of what we have uncovered, one sees sham transactions, one after another, where insiders were asked to buy land and hold land for that bank, would be given 10 percent commissions for a land transaction in which it was a total sham, in the end costing the taxpayers--this S&L eventually collapsed and left the taxpayers with a $60 million bill to foot. Did the Clintons take improper tax deductions on their Whitewater investment? It is a question. The committee is working on that and looking at that. Maybe, indeed, the White House does not want us to have those answers or hold public hearings. I guess if you took improper tax deductions, you might not want that to come out. Did Governor Clinton direct special favors to McDougal to keep Madison afloat? If the President--then Governor--did not do any of these things, fine, then let the record clear that question. It would seem to me if he did, maybe that is why we are hearing all of this puffery, smoke, and bellowing that this is politics having these questions answered. Did the Governor help Dan Lasater, a convicted distributor of cocaine, get bond contracts with the State of Arkansas? Did he or did he not? I do not know. But again, the question is, if he did not, then fine, let us at least go through this and clear the record. Then, I would be the first to say that is absolutely an unsubstantiated allegation. Did Governor Clinton exchange favors for campaign contributions from officials of the Perry County bank? These officials, by the way, were just indicted last month. We did not just come out with these names. Did that happen or did it not? These are just some of the unanswered questions. I think that we have an obligation to get the facts. Sixteen days of filibuster. Now, the New York Times said that a Democratic filibuster against a vote on additional funding would be ``silly stonewalling''. They said: No argument about politics on either side can outweigh the fact that the White House has yet to reveal the full facts about the land venture, about the Clintons' relationship to McDougal's banking activities, Hillary Rodham Clinton's work as a lawyer on Whitewater matters, and the mysterious movement of documents between the Rose Law Firm, various basements, and closets in the Executive mansion. The committee, politics notwithstanding-- This is the New York Times. has earned an indefinite extension, and a Democratic filibuster against it would be silly stonewalling. That is not my statement. That is the New York Times, certainly not a spokesperson for the Republican Party or Republican philosophy. Yesterday, the Washington Post said essentially the same thing. Let me quote what it said: Lawmakers and the public have a legitimate interest in getting answers to many questions that prompted the investigation in the first place and those that have been raised in the course of it by the conduct of many administration witnesses. If Democrats think that stonewalling or stalling will make Whitewater go away, they are badly mistaken. The probe is not over, whether they tried to call it off or not. Again, that is the Washington Post. So my colleagues on the other side may attempt to keep the investigation and the funding for it from going forth. Again, I have offered to curtail the committee's work to 4 months. I think we would be making a mistake in setting an arbitrary date certain, but in the interest of moving the process forward and of attempting to depoliticize it, I am willing to do so. Let me suggest that there is a common theme to the number of lingering questions. As Pulitzer prize-winning author, James Stewart, states in his new book ``Blood Sport'': The question of whether specific laws were broken should not obscure the broader issues that make Whitewater an important story. How Bill and Hillary Clinton handled what was their single largest investment says much about their character and integrity. It shows how they reacted to power, both in their quest for it and their wielding of it. It shows their willingness to hold themselves to the same standard everyone else must, whether in meeting a bank's conditions for a loan, taking responsibility for their savings, investments and taxes, or cooperating with Federal investigators. Perhaps most important, it shows whether they have spoken the truth on subjects of legitimate concern to the American people. Mr. Stewart is not some partisan author out to get the Clintons. He has a reputation for being fair and thorough. In fact, the Clintons, through their close associate, Susan Thomases, first asked Mr. Stewart to write this book. He even had direct access to Mrs. Clinton early on. Mr. Stewart has uncovered a number of important facts about Whitewater. He has identified new witnesses. In an excerpt published in Time magazine, Mr. Stewart raises serious questions about the Clintons' role in managing the Whitewater investment after 1986. Although the Clintons have always claimed to have been passive investors in Whitewater, Mr. Stewart found that Mrs. Clinton actively managed the Whitewater investments after 1986. Mr. President, we will continue to seek a solution to this impasse. Yesterday--and I repeat it today--we offered to extend our hearings by 4 months. But I do not think that we can simply allow this kind of obstruction and stonewalling to keep us from attempting to get the facts. Now, if those facts clear the Clintons and their associates, the American people have a right to know; they really do. The White House has the opportunity to help in insisting that we conduct these hearings expeditiously, yes, but in a manner that will get the truth out there, and if it vindicates them, then that should be the case. Now, if indeed they have no concern about their actions, then it would seem to me that the proper course of action would be to authorize the committee to do its work and get to the job of doing its work, and attempt to get those witnesses that we now do not have access to as soon as the case is over in Little Rock. Certainly, we would hope within the next 6 to 7 weeks it will be concluded. Maybe we will not be able to get some or any of those witnesses, but at least we will have made our good-faith effort in attempting to do so, and to do so in a way that does not impinge upon or impair the work of the special counsel. So I believe that the facts are clear. I think the American people are entitled to get this information, and I think what we are facing here is a politically orchestrated attempt to stop the committee from doing its work. That does not reflect well upon the Senate, the White House, or either of the political parties. The process is one that should be continued. It should be continued because otherwise the questions will remain: What are they hiding? Why are they afraid? Again, while the resolution calls for no time limitation, let it be clear that this Senator will be happy to amend that to 4 months. We have not gotten any satisfactory reply with respect to our offer. It is an offer that I make here on the Senate floor again. There are limitations when you do that, as described by the former Senate majority leader, a Democrat, George Mitchell, when he said, ``When you set a time line, you then get people who look to work at that as a mark to delay the hearings, delay the release of information.'' Notwithstanding that, we would be willing to submit that as a timeframe in which to try to complete our work, the work of the committee. Some people have said to me, ``What happens if it appears that the Democrats are going to continue to filibuster, Senator? What will you do?'' We will be forced to go forward with our work. It will be more difficult, and we have a busy agenda for the Banking Committee, but, nevertheless, we have to do the best we can; come in early; work as many hours as we can; deal with the various maneuvers that our Democratic colleagues will undoubtedly employ in attempting to keep the committee from doing its work. But a large share of the work that we are embarked upon could be undertaken by the Banking Committee. It would be difficult in terms of resources, but we will do it. It will certainly be, I think, very burdensome as it relates to some of the burdens that will be placed upon the staff of the Banking Committee, the time of the Banking Committee and its members. I also point out that there are certain perils for those who may want to circumscribe and carefully proscribe the scope of the inquiry. As authorized pursuant to the Resolution 120 we have limited the scope of our inquiry. If we were to take this up with the Banking Committee, in many cases the scope would not be nearly as limited. I can assure my friends and colleagues, if that is the route they choose to take, then they will create a situation in which they have to understand that the scope will be broadened. I say that because they should understand there will come a point in time when we would then have to fall back to the use of the Banking Committee as opposed to going forward with the special committee that has carefully proscribed a methodology for which we could proceed. I think we would be making a great mistake. I hope we can work out a compromise. Let the chips fall where they may; the offer is on the table, and I hope that we can settle this thing without a prolonged debate. Otherwise, we will be back here tomorrow, we will be back here the next day, and we will be back here next week. The question is, What are my friends at the White House afraid of?

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we provide 4 additional minutes to be equally divided, so that we each have 2 minutes.

Mr. D'AMATO. I asked for 4 minutes, 2 minutes for each side.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to express strong support for The Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1995 (S. 1494). I wish to express my thanks to Senators Mack, Bond, Shelby, Bennett, and Domenici for their cosponsorship of this important legislation. In addition, I would like to offer thanks to Senator Sarbanes, Senator Kerry, and all members of the committee for their dedication to this bill. The Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1995 represents a bipartisan effort which would: provide short-term extensions of housing authority which have expired; preserve assisted housing; protect elderly tenants in public and assisted housing; and promote self-help housing and community development programs. This legislation originally passed the Senate on January 24, 1996. The House of Representatives passed a House amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 1494 on February 27, 1996. The House amendment represents a bicameral effort to gain consensus on an immediate direction for Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] housing programs. To that end, the bill protects the needy recipients of various housing programs that have lapsed authority. For instance, S. 1494 extends the HUD Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Demonstration [HECM] Program through September 2000. Last November I introduced legislation, S. 1409, to provide a 5-year extension of this successful and much needed program. The HECM Program offers elderly homeowners the opportunity to borrow against the equity in their homes. Without this program, senior citizens with low incomes might be forced to sell their homes and spend their golden years elsewhere. In addition, S. 1494 extends the following programs until September 1996: the HUD community development block grant homeownership program; the Rural Housing Service section 515 multifamily loan program; and the Federal Housing Administration multifamily housing risk-sharing programs. The legislation provides authority to the HUD Secretary to operate the preservation program as passed in title II of the fiscal year 1996 VA/HUD appropriations legislation, H.R. 2099, on December 7, 1995. This provision is needed to protect existing tenants in HUD insured projects, to preserve the existing housing stock, and to recognize the rights of owners. Further, S. 1494 would provide greater safety and security for our Nation's elderly tenants in public and assisted housing. The bill would streamline procedures for public housing authorities to designate public housing facilities as ``elderly only,'' ``disabled only,'' or ``elderly and disabled families only.'' Public housing authorities would be authorized to evict residents in these designated facilities whose pattern of drug or alcohol abuse would jeopardize the safety of elderly and disabled residents. In addition, housing authorities would be required to provide occupancy standards and an expedited grievance procedure for the eviction of tenants who have a pattern of drug or alcohol abuse. The Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act would encourage self- help and community development programs which require little or no HUD regulation. HUD would be authorized to provide grants to capable nonprofit organizations, such as Habitat-for-Humanity. In addition, the bill would permit HUD the discretion to utilize reprogrammed funds for the Cities in Schools Program. The Cities in Schools Program is our country's largest and most successful student dropout prevention network. It serves as a model of how effective a public/private partnership organization can be in serving our national goals. The legislation would also provide an authorization of commitment authority to the Government National Mortgage Association of $110 billion for fiscal year 1996 and increase the HUD section 108 loan guarantee aggregate limit from $3.5 billion to $4.5 billion. The Banking Committee and its Housing Subcommittee continue to analyze proposals for the reorganization and elimination of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. After the opportunity for further debate and hearings on existing HUD and Department of Agriculture housing programs, housing reform legislation will be introduced this Spring. Until passage of more comprehensive legislation, the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1995 is essential for the continued operation of our Nation's housing delivery system. I thank my colleagues for their support for passage of S. 1494.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today we have seen what is the first of probably a number of votes to attempt to curtail the filibuster against moving forward with the Whitewater investigation. Let us be clear and set the record straight. I have offered publicly, and I offer again on the Senate floor, an opportunity to answer the question of whether or not the committee is looking to continue the investigation into the political season and to do so by incorporating an indefinite time agreement. I can state, we are willing to limit--not that I am happy about it--since the setting of arbitrary time limits, as stated by the former Democratic majority leader, Senator Mitchell, is a mistake. Senator Mitchell came to this conclusion to prevent the possibility of lawyers from stalling and keeping matters from coming forth. However, recognizing that we are in a unique situation, this Senator has indicated before and I indicate publicly now that we would be willing to terminate the committee's work, even if it is not finished, within 4 months. It will take us, I believe, at least that period of time since there is a trial which is taking place right now in Little Rock, AR. There are witnesses who are unavailable to us who are testifying there. I believe that their presence, at least the opportunity to attempt to bring them forward, is important. Mr. President, let me quote something. Let me read it to you. No arguments about politics on either side can outweigh the fact that the White House has yet to reveal the full facts about the land venture, the Clintons' relationship with Mr. McDougal's banking activities, Hillary Rodham Clinton's work as a lawyer on Whitewater matters, and the mysterious movements of documents between the Rose Law Firm, various basements and closets, and the Executive Mansion. The committee, politics notwithstanding, has earned an indefinite extension. A Democratic filibuster against it would be silly stonewalling. That is what we have seen today. Every single Democrat came in here and voted to stonewall at the direction of the White House. Let us not make any mistakes about who is calling the shots here. It is the White House. Now, that is not a statement in terms of the stonewalling or being silly. That is a quote from the New York Times-- the New York Times. They are certainly not an organ or a mouthpiece of the Republican Party. Let me quote today's Washington Post--today's Washington Post: Lawmakers and the public have a legitimate interest in getting answers to the many questions that prompted the investigation in the first place and those that have been raised in the course of it by the conduct of many administration witnesses . . . If Democrats think that stalling or stonewalling will make Whitewater go away, they are badly mistaken. The probe is not over, whether they try to call it off or not. Now, that is the Washington Post today, certainly not a mouthpiece of the Republican Party. Let me read to you from the current issue of Time magazine, just a small part. The question of whether specific laws were broken should not obscure the broader issue that makes Whitewater an important story. How Bill and Hillary Clinton handled what was their single largest investment says much about their character and integrity. It shows how they reacted to power, both in their quest for it and their wielding of it. It shows their willingness to hold themselves to the same standards everyone else must--whether in meeting a bank's conditions for a loan, taking responsibility for their savings, investments and taxes, or cooperating with Federal regulators. Perhaps most important, it shows whether they have spoken the truth on a subject of legitimate concern to the American people. That was written by James Stewart, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist. Mr. Stewart has just written a major book, ``Blood Sport,'' about the Clintons' investment in Whitewater. I come right back to the final question: What are my friends afraid of? What is the White House afraid of? Why are they reluctant to allow the committee to conclude its work? What are they hiding from the American people? I believe that the American people have a right to these answers. No amount of criticism as it relates to what the committee has done to date will obfuscate the fact that they are continuing to stonewall. It is not silly. It is incorrigible. It is wrong. And it does not bring credit to this institution or to either political party or to the process. Once again, I lay forth the opportunity to settle this so that we do not have to have speeches and debates and say that we can conclude the committee's work in 4 months. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss something that most people who follow the subject, I am sure already knew, but is nevertheless an interesting admission. In a Reuters interview, yesterday, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary General of Hezballah in Lebanon, flatly admitted to Iranian funding when he said: We are not shy and they (Iranians) are not afraid about it . . . we don't hide Iranian support. There is no need to deny that we receive financial and political support from Iran. Moreover, he admitted that Syrian forces in Lebanon's Bekkah valley help greatly in getting weapons to his forces, when he stated: Syrian forces are stationed in the Bekaa [sic] (valley) and the north. These two areas constituted the background of support for resistance fighters in (Israeli)-occupied areas. These admissions, especially that of implicit Syrian support for Iranian terrorism are vital to understanding the relationship of these terrorist organizations and how they operate in the region. If we are going to support Israel while it wages peace, are we going to ignore Syria and Iran while they wage war against Israel? We cannot ignore what is going on for mere political expediency. We must confront the facts as they exist and this means that we must question the Syrians on this admission. With Iran, I am sure that there is no disagreement. But Syria is another question altogether. Mr. President, I ask that the text of this important interview be printed in the Record. The text follows: [From Reuters, Mar. 11, 1996] Hezbollah Chief Admits Iran Is Financing Group With BC-Iran-President Beirut, Lebanon.--For the first time, the leader of Hezbollah acknowledged publicly in an interview published Monday that Iran is financing the group. ``We don't hide Iranian support. There is no need to deny that we receive financial and political support from Iran'' said Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary-General of the Shiite Muslim Militant Group. ``We are not shy and they (Iranians) are not afraid about it,'' he said in an interview with the London-based Arabic Language Weekly Al Wasat. It was the first public admission of Iranian financial support by a senior leader of Hezbollah, or Party of God. The group has vociferously denounced the planned counter- terrorism summit at Egypt's Red Sea resort of Sharm El-Sheik Wednesday. Why doesn't one wonder why the United States is paying 3 billion dollars to the Zionist entity, which is attacking the entire region while condemnation is voiced over Iran's financial support for Hezbollah or any Islamic resistance faction fighting to liberate its land?'' Nasrallah said. Hezbollah guerrillas are fighting to oust the 1,200 Israeli soldiers and 2,500 Israeli-backed South Lebanon Army militiamen from an occupied border enclave in South Lebanon. Israel established the enclave, known as a ``security zone,'' in 1985 as a buffer against cross-border guerrilla attacks on its northern towns. Hezbollah guerrillas mounted a string of attacks on Israeli troops in the ``security zone'' Sunday, killing one and wounding five. Nasrallah also said that Syria, the main power broker in Lebanon, was facilitating Hezbollah's arms supplies through routes in northern and eastern Lebanon. Syria maintains an estimated 40,000 troops in Lebanon, ostensibly as peacekeepers to prevent a rekindling of the 1975-90 civil war. Nasrallah said since Hezbollah was founded in 1982 following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon that year, Syria has provided the party with ``a political cover, moral support and field facilities.'' ``Syrian forces are stationed in the Bekaa (Valley) and the north. These two areas constituted the background of support for resistance fighters in (Israeli)-occupied areas,'' he said. ``Of course, Syria didn't give us money. It has supported us and facilitated'' arms supplies, Nasrallah added. Like its sponsor, Iran, Hezbollah opposes the U.S.- sponsored Middle East peace process and has vowed to torpedo it through intensified attacks in South Lebanon, the last active Arab-Israeli war front. The Sharm El-Sheik Summit, which will be attended by U.S. President Clinton and more than 30 other world leaders, was called to bolster Israel following a wave of suicide bombings which killed 61 people. Hezbollah has hailed the bombings, which have been claimed by the Palestinian militant Hamas group, as an ``Act of Heroic Jihad (holy war) against occupation.''

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Tuesday, March 12, at 9 a.m. for a hearing on the subject of human radiation experiments.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 5 p.m. on Tuesday, March 12, 1996, in executive session, to consider Tailhook and related nominations.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, March 12, 1996, in open session, to receive testimony on the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 1997 and the future years Defense plan.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on the Youth Violence of the Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 12, 1996, at 10 a.m., in the Senate Dirksen Building, Room 226, to hold a hearing on funding youth violence programs: should the strings be cut?

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on African Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 12, 1996, at 2 p.m. to hold hearing.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to further comment on a joint resolution introduced on March 5, 1996, that disapproves of the administration's certification of Mexico. I am joined by my colleagues Senator Helms, Senator McConnell, and Senator Pressler who are original cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 50, but were inadvertently omitted as original cosponsors upon introduction. I also urge its immediate passage. In order to determine if a country has cooperated fully with the United States, the President must evaluate the country's efforts in several areas: their efforts to reduce cultivation of illegal drugs, their interdiction efforts, the swift, decisive action by the Government against corruption within its ranks and their extradition of drug traffickers. The results of the Government's efforts are the true indication of success. These same standards should also be used when Congress measures the accomplishments of foreign governments. As required under the Foreign Assistance Act, the President released his list on March 1 and granted Mexico full certification. That designation is completely unacceptable, and undeserved. And for that reason, my colleagues and I are introducing this joint resolution of disapproval of Mexico's certification. Mexico is a sieve. For the President to certify that Mexico is complying with antinarcotics efforts and curbing the export of drugs across the border is simply not supported by the facts. Our own Drug Enforcement Agency [DEA] estimates that up to 70 percent of all illegal drugs found in the United States come from Mexico. Seventy five percent of the cocaine in the U.S. is said to have come from Mexico. Virtually all of the heroin produced in Mexico is trafficked in the United States. These numbers certainly do not sound like full cooperation to me. From these numbers alone, it seems as though the Mexican Government has failed horribly in its efforts to curb the flow of drugs into the United States. Even the International Narcotics Control Strategy Report just released by the State Department states that ``no country in the world poses a more immediate narcotics threat to the United States than Mexico.'' Our own State Department says this. Even efforts to end police corruption have failed because the drug trade has infiltrated the Mexican law enforcement community. Robert Gelbard, Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs in a congressional hearing, stated that ``we have always been aware--and acknowledge--that law enforcement corruption in Mexico is a deeply entrenched, serious obstacle to bilateral antinarcotics cooperation.'' The State Department, in their 1996 Strategy Report, while acknowledging some efforts by the Mexican Government, indicates the continuation of official corruption by stating that, ``endemic corruption continued to undermine both policy initiatives and law enforcement operations.'' It is time that the Mexican Government takes aggressive action against drug traffickers. Promises are no longer adequate. Among other steps that should be taken, Mexico should be arresting and extraditing more of its cartel leaders. Mexico must comply with the 165 outstanding requests for extradition by the United States. That would be real cooperation. The Mexican Government should also swiftly enact legislation stemming the growing problem of money laundering and enforce its anticorruption laws. There are no reporting requirements if an individual walks up to an exchange center with suitcases filled with cash. This should be adequate evidence that Mexico needs reporting requirements of large cash transactions. Action to identify and prosecute officials that interfere with the investigation, prosecution, or have assisted in the drug trade, must occur with greater frequency if government officials are to be trusted. For the President to claim that Mexico has been fully cooperating to end the scourge of drugs is beyond belief. I hope that the Senate will now closely analyze and debate the extent of Mexico's participation in the illegal drug trade. Then we should ask ourselves, ``Is the Mexican Government taking actions that actually slows the flow of drugs?'' It seems as though it has not. The Mexican Government must do more to fight the narcotics industry that has permeated the lives of the Mexican people and the economy of Mexico. The drug trade is worth tens of billion of dollars to Mexico. No wonder Mexico is having difficulty decreasing the flow of drugs from their country into ours. There is too much money involved. Mexico is now being used to store cocaine from Colombia for shipment into the United States. The cartels may be storing as much as 70 to 100 tons of cocaine in Mexico at any one time. With a developing narcotics infrastructure and its close proximity to the United States, Mexico has proven to be an asset that the cartels do not want to lose. And now there are reports that the Mexican gangs may soon take over the drug trafficking from the Cali cartel. It is ironic then that Colombia, the source country, was decertified while Mexico was fully certified. I must also add that I have heard that some foreign officials believe our certification process is illegitimate. This is the height of arrogance. What is illegitimate about placing conditions on our foreign aid and requiring the recipient to curb the flow of drugs? The certification process has the net effect of bringing the drug problem to the forefront, not only for the United States but also for Mexico. It seems as though only when a government is forced to confront the problem as difficult as the drug trade will a solution be found. As a result of the amount of drugs that are found to have come into the United States through Mexico, we know that Mexico has failed to stem the international drug trade. If this administration does not want to recognize Mexico's failure, then it is up to Congress to do so. Again, I encourage my colleagues to join us in this effort.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let us take a look at this. So we have the officer. He sees files being removed. We then have the testimony of Mr. Castleton, the young White House intern who is now working at the White House and worked for the President in his election campaign in 1992 and probably will be working on this one. So he has no reason, no hostility, no animus to try to create a story. He says that Maggie Williams told him they were taking these documents up to the White House because ``Mrs. Clinton wants to review them.'' Then we add to that Mrs. Huber, Carolyn Huber--who worked for the Clintons for 20 years, was really in charge of their personal day-to- day matters, the archiving of important documents, their deeds, their tax records, et cetera. She is the person who says that when she initially found these billing records back in August of last year--and I believe her--she thought they were being left there because things were generally left on the table, the Clintons would leave things on the table to be filed by her, and that is what she did. She took these and put them into a box and carried them downstairs to her office where she would review eventually that and other materials to decide where they should be placed. It was not until January 4 that she discovered what these were. How did these documents get there? Who had them? Who had control over them? Who deliberately withheld them from the special counsel, from the RTC, and from others? How do you think they got there? Do you think Officer O'Neill dreamed up the fact that Maggie Williams took documents out of Vince Foster's office? Do we think this young man, Tom Castleton, dreamed up the fact that it was said that indeed Mrs. Clinton wanted to review these files, and they were carried up, she asked to have carried up these boxes of documents. And what about Mrs. Huber, a Clinton confidant for 20 years, who ran the Governor's mansion in Little Rock, was office manager in the Rose Law Firm and is an assistant now in the White House, who is in charge of archiving all of the most personal of their documents? Do you think she made up the story when she said, for the first time--never before, you have to understand--she passed an assignment to carry documents up by the chief of staff, Maggie Williams, to the First Lady? This is the first time the First Lady asked her. She was specific in saying that this took place and Mrs. Clinton wanted to look at these papers. Is there any wonder why? This is not something that you could easily lose--a slip of paper, a scrap of paper inadvertently in the bottom of a desk drawer or in a file that one would not come up with, you know, the general file. These are the records. Why do you think the records were discovered in August? That was the very time when the RTC was raising questions with respect to the various transactions. What is illuminating about this is that there are a number of times, occasions, when the Rose Law Firm--in particular, one of its partners-- had conversations with Seth Ward about a transaction that was characterized by Federal banking regulators as a ``sham.'' This is a transaction that would eventually lead to the loss of $3.8 million of taxpayers' money and, obviously, one with which Webb Hubbell did not want to have his name associated because the deal maker in that case was his father-in-law, Seth Ward. His father-in-law. That is why he had another partner on that deal. I do not know what they were going to do. But eventually Seth Ward had to pay back $335,000 when the bank collapsed and the RTC said, ``You are going to give us back this money.'' He had a big lawsuit between McDougal and the bank. He won that lawsuit because lots of the facts that probably should have been presented at trial--the fact that it was an inside, cozy deal--really did not come out. There was $335,000 in commissions that Ward got for not doing a darned thing. Why give that money for not a thing? There was a 10-percent commission for land that was sold by this fellow McDougal, partner to the Clintons, from one bank to the other. Now, look, the pattern continues. Documents are produced because they fall into the hands of the people who cannot nor will allow themselves to be placed in a position of obstructing justice. When Mrs. Huber eventually realized what these documents were and that they were subpoenaed materials, when she saw them on January 4, she did what she was supposed to do; she called this attorney, called White House counsel. They came over and made copies. The committee got them. So how do you think the documents got there? Do you think they were in that box that young man carried up there? If they were in that box, then how is it, as maintained by the White House, that everything was sent over, that nobody looked at this. I think that is the most unreasonable, incredible story I have heard. Let me tell you why. You had a lawyer, a trusted confident and lawyer, who met an untimely, tragic death and he had some of your most sensitive papers in terms of your tax treatment and liability in terms of a variety of issues that could be certainly embarrassing and certainly important to you. And he died, and you ask someone either at his office, a coworker, a secretary, ``Please get me those documents because I want to have them transferred over to my new lawyer.'' If you wanted them to be transferred directly, would you not ask them to transfer them directly? But would it not be more reasonable, and perfectly appropriate, to say I wish to look at these documents before I send them over to my lawyer? There may be things that are relevant or irrelevant, pertinent or not. There may be documents in there that have nothing to do with us. And, indeed, very interestingly, there was a document that apparently made its way up to the White House. It made its way up to the White House and somehow mysteriously got kicked back because it was not germane. Now, the Clinton lawyers did not send that back. We have not found out how it got back. That is the mysterious document that travels in reverse. We do not know how that document got back. But the point of the matter is, it would not be unreasonable for anyone, anyone, least of all the First Family, to want to review these. And so it becomes very, very difficult for us to understand, some of us, how it is that the billing records show up. And, indeed, if no one reviewed the documents, you would have suspected or imagined that they would have been there. These were documents that Vince Foster was working on. He has notations all over them, his own personal hand. So how do you think the documents got there? You do not think that they were transported there? And what about the documents that Tom Castleton transported? Wouldn't most people want to see what documents concerning your own life were being sent to a new lawyer? I think it is absolutely extraordinary to believe that you would have no interest in checking this out, that you would leave it to someone else, that you would leave it to a new lawyer. It is very difficult to believe. So what would the conclusion be if one were to say it would be difficult to believe? It means that somebody did look at these. But, you see, once you take a stand and put out a story as the White House did--because I think they were embarrassed when it was discovered that these documents were secreted away in this closet for a period of time--they had to come out and say, yeah, they were, instead of saying, sure, the Clintons looked at them. It would be natural. But, see, they already denied that: No, never looked at them, never. I think that would be one of the most unnatural things, illogical things, not to look at your own papers, not to look at your own papers, not to say, well, what is there? At least I know what we sent over to our new lawyer, after their lawyer, their friend, had died in such a way. But, see, once you make a story up, you have to stick to it. And so the mystery of the disappearing, then the appearing, billing records, I think becomes rather logical. They were in possession of the White House, the First Family, right since the day that young Mr. Castleton brought those files, all of those files up there to be reviewed. Now, for the life of me, I cannot understand why they did not say, of course, we looked at them. What would I say? Would I say it was wrong or evil for the First Family to look at their own personal papers? Of course not. It would be illogical to suggest that they should not or would not or could not. And I know when I have heard colleagues say, oh, well, they would be accused of all kinds of conspiratorial things if they looked at them. Come on. That is nonsense. People have a right to look at their own documents, the President, Vice President, anybody. So here we are at this point in time. The record is replete with these kinds of inconsistencies, and I think they are more than inconsistencies. I believe that Maggie Williams did not give us testimony that provided all the facts to us. I believe that she did not accurately relate the facts, particularly with respect to the instructions she received about moving these documents and who they were there for, and I think that helps answer the question of the mysteriously reappearing documents. Let me cite again the New York Times: The Senate's duty cannot be truncated nor canceled because of the campaign calendar. Any certain date for terminating of the hearings would encourage even more delay in producing subpoenaed documents than the committee has endured. The committee has been forced to await such events as the criminal trial of the McDougals. I am ready and willing to do the work of the committee as expeditiously as possible. Notwithstanding, we should not set arbitrary time limits. Why? Because that provides an opportunity, as has been stated before, for purposeful delay that I believe has occurred before this committee. And I do not know of anyone who can say that we have received all of the documents. How can you say that? I got a letter from a lawyer on behalf of one of President Clinton's closest aides that says he is not turning over documents to us, and he is raising a privilege that the President said they would not. We are going to cooperate. So I know for certain that there are documents that we are entitled to that are being withheld deliberately--deliberately. I say that I would be willing, and I ask my colleagues on the other side, to consider putting a time limit of 10 weeks after the Little Rock trial concludes, no longer than 4 months from this point, because, as my colleagues have pointed out, the trial could go on indefinitely. There has to be an end at some point because there are other important considerations, and situations that we want to attempt to avoid. And it was my intention to attempt to avoid right from the inception. I thought we could have had our work completed. We ran into the problems of not getting witnesses and documents heretofore. But I recognize that there are some on the Democratic side who feel very strongly that this should not continue. So with that in mind, I am willing to put forth that we have a 4-month extension or any combination of 8 to 10 weeks after the trial, whichever is less, whichever is less, as a finite time. I recognize also that if indeed there are matters of great consequences that come forth, then obviously it will behoove all of us to say that we have to continue. But if indeed there are still unanswered questions, and it is just a matter of us not being able to continue, then we have to act accordingly. I hope that my colleagues on the other side would consider this. By next week, we will get into the testimony of Susan Thomases, unbelievable testimony, testimony that is not credible, of this brilliant lawyer, a close friend of Mrs. Clinton, who cannot remember key dates even though they are logged in her files. And we will get into the extraordinary things we had to do in order the get documents from her. If this is the kind of thing that they want, then we will have to do it. I say, last but not least, that I will spell this out with specificity. And if indeed we fail in cloture the first time, we will take it to cloture again and again. I guess the White House will look at the polls to determine the impact of attempting to keep us from going forward and, I think, holding back facts. So we will make a determination. If we cannot come to a resolution we will have to use whatever resources we have at our disposal to do the best we can--and it may not be as easy and may be more cumbersome--so that we can to get the facts. We will do that. I will use the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. And I will spell that out in further detail. So we will not be without resources. It will be more difficult. It will place a greater strain. We may have to meet a lot more. But I have put forth the basis by which we could resolve this matter without one side saying, ``What are you hiding?'' and the other side saying, ``It's nothing but politics.'' We will raise the question, what is the White House afraid of? What are they hiding? My colleagues on the other side will say this is nothing more than politics in an attempt to embarrass the President. No one gains by that. No one gains by that. So I put this offer forth, and I hope we can work this out and resolve our differences. I yield the floor. Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I believe that we have a constitutional obligation to get the facts as it relates to the Whitewater Committee and its work, which is incomplete. It is not nearly complete. It is not complete for a variety of reasons. The fact of the matter is that just this past Saturday--actually late on a Friday--this committee received a letter from a very prominent lawyer. That lawyer represents Bruce Lindsey. Bruce Lindsey is President Clinton's close friend, confidant, and assistant. For months and months and months, Mr. Lindsey and his attorney were aware of the fact that we were seeking all notes and all relevant material that he may have had in connection with Whitewater. We know that he was part of this Whitewater strategic team. We know that. Mr. Lindsey testified that he did not take notes. We were concerned and we had reason to believe that he did take notes. Mr. Lindsey's attorney sends us a letter, very interestingly, dated March 1. That is after the deadline for our committee's work or the appropriation for our committee. He sends us the notes that we had asked him about, which he had first denied ever having taken. There are two pages, all about Whitewater and various questions--like who made telephone calls in connection with it to Bill Kennedy, Randy Coleman, Hale, and other people involved in it. And then he tells us in his concluding sentence that he has additional documents, and he claims a privilege--not a privilege between himself, being Mr. Lindsey's lawyer--but he raises a privilege between himself and these documents being sent, that they are attorney-client discussions and communications with the President's counsel. Now, first, we have the White House saying they would not raise the issue of privilege. Second, we have no way of knowing if this information falls within that domain. Third, in order to keep his client from obviously thwarting the will of the committee and its subpoena, he cloaks this. Understand, if anybody can simply say that these are documents or information that I shared with the President's counsel, that would automatically thwart us from getting information. That is what this is about. This is a way of keeping information from us and not, obviously, being in a position where he is in contempt of a duly authorized, issued subpoena. That is what is going on. It is incredible. Now, our attorneys have written to him. Our attorneys have written and we have asked to see the so-called privilege log that would exist, and we have been denied that. We have been given no response to this. Here we have people who want to cut off this investigation. They want to cut it off. Well, I have to tell you that when we get information that comes in after the work of the committee, that we hoped had been concluded, and get information from key White House officials, I have to suggest that that is why it becomes very difficult and dangerous to set a time certain for the conclusion of an investigation. Indeed, in the book ``Men of Zeal,'' the former Democratic leader, Senator George Mitchell, said exactly that. He said this about when you set time lines: The committee's deadline provided a convenient stratagem for those who were determined not to cooperate. Bureaucrats in some agencies appeared to be attempting to thwart the investigative process by delivering documents at an extraordinary slow pace. The deadline provided critical leverage for attorneys of witnesses in dealing with the committee on whether their clients would appear without immunity, and when in the process they might be called. This is exactly what is taking place--holding back documents and documentation until the critical moment. Wait until the committee goes out of existence and then say, ``Oh, by the way, I was culling my files * * *'' Look, that is preposterous. This is the second major player to do this, the other being Mr. Ickes and his lawyer. Guess what his lawyer found? Mr. Ickes is deputy chief of the White House. His lawyer found the same kind of information. Guess what? In the same way. He culled his files and found them. Why would you not undertake this when we issued subpoenas months and months and months ago? There have been more editorials than this Senator cares to go through. Almost by a 5-to-1 ratio, the editorials say the Whitewater work should continue. Even though they did not say it should continue without a deadline, they indicate that, obviously, the work and the investigation has to be conducted in a way not to unduly politicize this investigation. We understand that there are political ramifications. We understand that on both sides. I think it is instructive to look at two articles. One is the New York Times. I do not deprecate any source of editorials. They have a right to think what they do. I think it is instructive when they say, ``The Senate's duty cannot be truncated because of the campaign calendar.'' That is the New York Times, not Senator D'Amato. That is not a partisan vehicle for Republican or conservative policies. Very clearly, the question then is: What are my friends afraid of? What is the White House afraid of? What are they hiding? What are they hiding? Now, it has been said that, ``You will never end this.'' Look, I will put forth now that we are willing to say we will conclude this in 4 months. We think the trial will take 6 to 8 weeks, maybe a little longer. That would give us 6 to 8 weeks, depending on when the trial in Little Rock ends. Why do I say trial? There are key witnesses, who have been unavailable, that this committee would like to examine. We would like to examine them and find out what they know or what they do not know. By the way, some of them may be unwilling to come in. I do not know how much more generous we can be. Certainly, to set a time deadline of April 5 is silly and would guarantee that we could not bring in these witnesses. It would guarantee, I think, the kind of thing that we got in that letter that was sent to us, in which the lawyer, in a very artful way, claims attorney-client privileged communications with the private counsel for the President. What we will do is have all of these witnesses that we seek to get documents from simply talking to the President's lawyer, and then you have automatic attorney-client privilege raised. That is wrong. We may have to fight that out, and we may have to take it to the floor of the Senate and ask for enforcement of the subpoena, and we will do it. We will do it. I do not know if those documents or that information will give us new information, information that we are not aware of. But I have to ask, ``why would you hold this back?'' Why would you not let us see the so-called privileged log so we could determine whether or not this was noted as something that was privileged earlier on, or is this just a convenient way to keep the committee from getting information and the American people from getting facts they are entitled to. I had a radio commentator who said, ``I am sick of this Whitewater.'' I have to tell you, ours is not to be an extraordinary, wonderful show. That is not the job of this committee. Ours is not to be entertaining. Ours is to get the facts. That is what we are attempting to do. But we have been thwarted every inch of the way. Again, here is the New York Times. What do they say? ``The Senate's duty cannot be canceled or truncated because of the campaign calendar.'' Then it goes on to say something very illuminating: ``Any certain date for terminating the hearings would encourage even more delay in producing subpoenaed documents that the committee has endorsed since it started last July. The committee has been forced to await such events as the criminal trial next week of James McDougal, a Clinton business partner in the failed Whitewater land venture.'' Now, these are facts. Facts. We have not had the factual information we have required and we are entitled to. We have been dealt with, I believe, disingenuously by many of the witnesses through their counsels in holding back information. I cannot believe a lawyer, in terms of searching for information, would not have revealed the facts and information repeatedly. If one were to look at the transcripts of the testimony, we will see witnesses who cannot remember, who forget over and over and over again. Officer O'Neill, the uniformed officer who was on duty at the White House the night of Vincent Foster's death, testified he was about to secure Foster's office. He saw Maggie Williams. Who is Maggie Williams? She is the assistant chief of staff to the First Lady, Hillary Clinton. He saw her carrying records out of Foster's office and place them in her office. Now, his testimony is very detailed. Williams and other White House insiders present at the same time, deny the records were removed. Williams testified that she did not remove documents from his office. The fact of the matter is we found documents, billing records that we know were in the possession of Mr. Foster. We know that; we have his own personal handwriting affixed to the billing documents. Guess where they show up? Upstairs in the residence of the White House. Now, how do you think they got there? How do you think they got there? By the way, Officer O'Neill has no reason to make up a story. He is not going to make a story up. We have another young man by the name of Castleton. Officer O'Neill says, ``I saw Evelyn Lieberman walk out of the counsel suite; she stood in front of the doorway, and I looked at her.'' Again, locking the office was mentioned. A few seconds later, I saw her come out with Mr. Nussbaum, come out behind her, and I saw Maggie Williams come out and turn to the direction I was standing and carrying what I would describe as folders, and she had them down in front of her as she walked down in the direction of where I was standing. She started to enter her office. She had to brace the folders on her arm, on a cabinet, and then she entered the office and came out within a few more seconds and locked the door. How did he know that this was Maggie Williams? He says, ``When Maggie Williams did walk out of the office and walked in my direction, Miss Lieberman said, `That is Maggie Williams. She is the First Lady's chief of staff.' '' He goes on. Question. A lot of questions have been asked about the fact you indicated some uncertainty whether there was a box on top of the folders. Are you in any doubt that Maggie Williams was carrying folders as she walked out of the White House counsel's office and walked past you into her own office? Answer. I am not in any doubt about it at all, sir. Question. Were you not sure, right? Answer. I was, yes, sir. Question. You are not playing games with us and not going to tell us you are certain about something if you are not? Answer. No, sir. Let me continue here. There is a young man by the name of Castleton, a White House intern who worked on the Clinton 1992 campaign; this is not a person who is out to get President Clinton. He testified that at Maggie William's request, he carried a box of documents that had been removed from Vincent Foster's office. This box was moved from Maggie William's office to the First Lady's personal residence. During the trip to the First Lady's office, Castleton testifies that Williams told him that the First Lady wanted to review these records. Now, Maggie Williams, she does not remember. She did not remember. She says that she would never tell him that. Why would she tell this fellow this? That is what she testifies to. Why would Castleton make up a story like that? How do you think realistically the billing files turned up in the personal residence-- the billing files of the Rose Law Firm; the billing files that really point to critical times and dates; the billing files that demonstrate that indeed the Rose Law Firm and Mrs. Clinton in particular had numerous calls with Seth Ward, Seth Ward being the eventual purchaser, one of the purchasers of the Castle Grande property. I think there were 14 to 15 conversations, meetings and/or calls, during a relatively short period of time, during a matter of 4 or 5 months. This is not inconsequential. This is Seth Ward, Webb Hubble's father-in-law. One would ask, why would Webb Hubble not have been doing that work? One would have to come to the conclusion, given the nature of those transactions--and those transactions wound up costing the American taxpayers, ultimately, $3.8 million, taxpayers' money--that those transactions were not bona fide. As a matter of fact, Federal officials have characterized them as ``sham transactions'' that really were the kind of thing that led to the looting of the bank. ``Let me ask you, when Mr. Chertoff raised the question to Mr. Castleton, did you understand that the box you were taking was a box of files that originated in Mr. Foster's office?'' ``I did understand that, sir.'' This is Mr. Castleton, a young man that worked on the Clinton campaign; he still works at the White House. Mr. Chertoff. You heard that from Maggie Williams? Mr. Castleton. Yes. Mr. Chertoff. Let me ask you, Mr. Castleton, on the way to the residence after you picked up the box, you were walking up with Maggie Williams on the way to your residence. What were you told by Maggie Williams about the box being taken up to the residence? Mr. Castleton. I was told that the contents of the box needed to be reviewed. Mr. Chertoff. Reviewed by whom? This is a young man that worked on the Clinton campaign in 1992, a young man who was working in the White House, a young man who still works in the White House. Mr. Castleton. By the First Lady. Mr. Chertoff. And is this something that Margaret Williams told you as you were walking up? Mr. Castleton. As we were walking from the place where I originally picked up the boxes to the residence. Now, counsel goes on further. This young man is unequivocal. I have to ask a question: Why would he lie? Why would Officer O'Neill lie? Why would he lie? He had no reason to make this up. Why would somebody who, as a partisan, has every right to be for one or the other--he went out and worked for the President--why would he would deliberately just make this up out of his head? And then, do not forget there were intervening times. They could have said, ``I imagined; I heard.'' He did not do that. It was unequivocal. Counsel says, ``Now, what did Margaret Williams say to you?'' ``Miss Huber, she called.'' Miss Huber is a longtime Clinton aide who eventually found the billing records. Where? In the personal residence of the First Lady and the President. Miss Huber. She called and said that Mrs. Clinton had asked her to call me to take her to the residence to put this box in our third floor office. We call it an office. Mr. Chertoff. Had Margaret Williams, on an earlier occasion, talked to you about storing records in the residence? Miss Huber. No. Mr. Chertoff. This was first time you had ever done that? Ms. Huber. Yes, sir. And you specifically recall that the First Lady had made that request? Yes. Now, look, is Ms. Huber lying? Is Officer O'Neill lying? Ms. Huber has spent 20 years with the Clintons. Do you think she lied? She did not lie. She told the truth. Listen to this. It is very instructive. It is very instructive. This woman, Ms. Huber, is the person who stores personal documents and puts them away for the Clintons. Mr. Chertoff says, ``Had Margaret Williams on any earlier occasion ever talked to you about ever storing records in the residence?'' And Ms. Huber says, ``No.'' Again, I think this is rather interesting. This is the first time. So Mr. Chertoff says: This the first time she ever had done this? Yes, sir. And she told you specifically the First Lady had made this request? Yes. Now, let me tell you something. Here we are talking about three people, three people. Officer O'Neill, who says that he actually saw Maggie Williams removing documents from Vince Foster's office. She denies it. Here is the second young man, Mr. Castleton. He worked for President Clinton in the campaign. He still works for the White House; he obviously has an affinity for the President and First Lady. He has no reason to make up an adverse story. What does he say? He says Maggie Williams told him, ``We are bringing these documents up to the First Lady.'' And, ``The First Lady wants to review them.'' Wants to review them. He did not equivocate. ``Are you sure,'' we said. ``Yes.'' ``Are you sure?'' ``Yes.'' And then we take Ms. Huber, a woman who ran the Rose Law Firm. She was the office manager there. She was in charge of the Governor's Mansion. She is a special assistant at the White House, a close confidant of the Clintons. She is the woman who stores their various papers, such as, I think she testified, income tax records and other papers, deeds of their homes, et cetera. We are talking about a trusted confidant, a friend of the Clintons. And get this. You must understand how unusual this set of transactions were. Mrs. Clinton, again, gives an order, an order that Maggie Williams relays to this young man. She says, ``We have to take these documents upstairs because Mrs. Clinton wants to review them.'' When we asked Maggie Williams about that she denies it. ``Why would I tell him?'' Of course she told him. He did not make that up. But are we going to say that Officer O'Neill was wrong? That this young man made up this story? And that Ms. Huber, Carolyn Huber, who has been with the Clintons for years and years and years and years, that she would dream this up? Listen to what Mr. Chertoff, our counsel, asked. He said: ``Had Maggie Williams on any earlier occasion talked to you about ever storing records in the residence?'' Ms. Huber said, ``No, no.'' ``Mr. Chertoff. This was the first time she asked you that you had done that?'' ``Yes, sir.'' ``And she told you specifically that the First Lady had made these requests?'' She says, ``Yes.'' Are we really saying here that Ms. Huber made this story up? That she lied? Listen to the question: Had she told you specifically that the First Lady had made this request? Yes. Had you ever been asked to do this before by Maggie Williams? No. These are the kinds of things that we find. They may be embarrassing. I have not brought these out before but, I tell you, it demonstrates the need to continue and to get the facts. And then we have the mysterious--I call it the miraculous appearance of these documents. Let me ask you, how do you think the documents got there, given the testimony of Officer O'Neill? Given the testimony of Tom Castleton, a young assistant who works in the White House, who said he was instructed to take the documents there and that Mrs. Clinton wanted to review these files? That is what he was told by Maggie Williams. Given the fact that Carolyn Huber had never been asked by the chief of staff for the First Lady to take files upstairs? She had been asked by the First Lady, had been asked by the President. Indeed she was their confidant. Never been asked before, but, more specifically, had been told that these instructions came by way of the First Lady. And then where do the files, the billing records, show up? Do you really wonder how they got there? Do we really believe the butler brought them there? How could the butler get his hands on them? Did he go into Vince Foster's office, unseen by anybody and everybody? Do we really want to be serious about this? Or do we want to trivialize it and say, ``Well, it is political.'' We can do that. That is fine. I am used to that. That is fine. What the heck, they have a file over there on me at the White House that their staff has been directed to compile, that they sent over to the DNC. I did not know that was the kind of thing that our Government was involved in. I did not think that the White House should be doing that kind of thing. I have heard about enemies' lists in the past. Is that the kind of business we are in? We want to stop the investigation? This is what we are going to do and we do not care who we slander and how we do it? And do we really use Government employees to become engaged in this kind of thing? It is bad enough if you are going to do that out of a political party. Let them do it. I do not say it is good. I do not say it is bad. It takes place. But, I mean, are we going to have Federal employees at the White House engage in that kind of thing? Are we going to have them be instructed by their counsel, by one of their counsels, who tells them: Let us get a file. Give us all the dirt you have on the Senator and send it over to the Democratic National Committee so we can get one of their guys to go out and continue to make regular attacks. It is not going to keep me from calling them as I see them. Let me tell you something, if there are facts that are exculpatory and there is nothing wrong, then, fine. This is just one little, tiny area. If we want to talk about this for days and days on the floor of the Senate we can do that and we will continue to do that. And let me serve notice, you may block this by way of a rollcall, a party rollcall. People have a right to vote any way they want. We will continue this work. And if we have to do it through the Banking Committee, we will do it. Let me tell you, I have not asked to go beyond the scope of that resolution and I have resisted calls to get into other areas. I have resisted them. But my inclination will not be to do that if we are forced to go through a very circuitous process, in which ours is to get the facts. When the New York Times--you can quote 32 others and you can quote letters to the editors, et cetera, that say this is a political witch hunt, this or that--when they say that we should continue the work and gather the facts, do not truncate this, I do not think there can be a clearer call. Let me go on. Here is Mr. Chertoff, in discussing some events with Miss Williams. He says, ``The fellow that helped you take the box, the papers, up to the residence?'' She is talking about this young Castleton, Mr. Chertoff is. Miss Williams says, ``Yes.'' Mr. Chertoff, the counsel said, ``Did you tell him that the reason that documents had to go to the residence was so that the President or the First Lady could review their contents? ``No,'' she says. ``I do not recall saying that to Tom Castleton.'' Mr. Chertoff then goes on, ``When you say you don't recall, are you telling us affirmatively that you didn't say it or are you just saying that you don't have a recollection one way or the other?'' ``Miss Williams. Well, I would like to say--'' now listen to this-- ``affirmatively I did not say it, because I cannot imagine why I would have that discussion with an intern about the files, going to the President and the First Lady. I know that I told them we were going to the residence because I figured he needed to know where he was going. But I cannot imagine that I said more than that. So I do not recall having the discussion with him.'' Mr. Chertoff later on goes on: Well, let me read you--that this intern testified in his deposition, starting at line 7, page 139, and he said, ``And, what did she tell you? Answer: She told me that they were taking the boxes into the residence.'' That part you agree with? Ms. Williams says, ``Yes.'' Mr. Chertoff then says: And, did she say where in the residence? Answer. No. Question. Did she say why you were taking them there? Here is Mr. Castleton: She says ``yes.'' Question. ``What was her statement? She says that the President, or the First Lady, had to review the contents of the boxes to determine what was in them. You disagree with that?'' Ms. Williams. ``Yes. I do.'' Mr. Chertoff. ``And you also do not agree with Mr. Nussbaum's testimony that in his discussion with you he indicated that the documents would go to the residence and the Clintons would be there and they would make a decision where they go? You disagree with that?'' Ms. Williams. ``No. That is not what I recall.'' Mr. Chertoff. ``You disagree with both of those?'' Ms. Williams. ``That is not what I recall.'' Mr. President, here we have a Secret Service officer, Officer O'Neill, who testifies that on the night of Vince Foster's death, that he sees Maggie Williams moving these documents--and he testifies with particular clarity. Maggie Williams denies that and takes polygraph tests. They sustain her contention that she did not do that. In fairness to her we have to say that. I think we also have to understand and note that we do not know how many polygraph tests she may have taken. There is also a very real question with respect to the reliability of them given the manner and the circumstances in which they are administered. But there is no reason, no earthly reason, for Officer O'Neill, who has been on the security detail of the Secret Service for some 17 years, to have conjured up his testimony or to have made that up or to create or to fabricate. No. 2, this is just one little part. But I focus in on it because I think it answers the question as to how the documents got into the residence--the documents being the billing records that just came to light in January, months and months and months after--2 years after the special counsel had subpoenaed them. So people knew. I mean, the White House lawyers knew. Everyone knew that these documents were requested and were sought for 2 years. They were covered by a subpoena. They were covered by our request and subsequent subpoena in October. (Mr. COVERDELL assumed the chair.)

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I understand. And then we made a request after that testimony and his lawyer said that he was going to look, to search the records. And we did not get anything. And now, on March 2, after the committee goes out of its authority--I do not know whether we have authority, but certainly authorization expired February 29--this letter is sent to us enclosing the notes he had taken. I find the letter interesting; this is the first time I have seen the letter, and I would ask my friend if he would take a look at the second page of the letter, the last paragraph, last sentence. ``We have not produced, of course, attorney-client privileged documents reflecting either Mr. Lindsey's communications with this firm.'' I understand that. In other words, he should not have to report his communications that he has had with his lawyer. Those are privileged. He has a right to assert that. But this is where I have some real trouble, and I think the committee will, and it is a very proper question. We will look and we will press and we will subpoena, if necessary, these documents, whatever they may be, because obviously his lawyer thought they were important enough that they would not place him in a position where he might be charged with obstructing justice or not responding to the subpoena. He has very smart lawyers. He is a lawyer himself, a former senior partner in a law firm. ``Or his''--meaning Mr. Lindsey's-- ``attorney-client privileged communications with private counsel for the President.'' I have to suggest he does not have a privilege with respect those conversations that he had and cannot assert that with respect to those conversations and those documents, and we have been in touch with him about this. We have gone to the point that we brought down to the Senate floor and voted on--this is the one area that we could not agree on--whether or not documents were privileged. That same kind of question about whether they would be required to waive privilege came, and we were ready to vote enforcement of the subpoenas that we issued. That was the only time that we had a disagreement. I have to say to my friend, again, this raises very substantial questions. Now, reasonable people might disagree, but I have to suggest to you that was not just placed in there as some legal nicety. That is important. And I have to say, what information does he have? We have settled the manner in which to deal with many of these issues. We have had majority counsel and minority counsel meet to see whether or not information should be made public, whether the committee had a right to it or not. At the very least, we have a right to see whether or not this falls within that area of information that is not germane to the subject of our inquiry--at the very least. Now, if people want to raise, if the White House wants to raise the issue of privilege, which the President of the United States said he would not--he would not--why, then, that is their right. But for Mr. Lindsey's attorney to withhold and say, ``We are not going to do it,'' that is improper. Now, if the White House wants to come in and say, ``We are asserting that Mr. Lindsey had communications with the President's private counsel that are privileged,'' then they have a right to do that. I am not agreeing that we are going to say that falls within the parameters of the privilege. We may insist on enforcement. But I have to tell you that this again raises questions. And when do we get this information? Saturday. How is it that we have got so many of these convenient kinds of lapses? And this is not the first time. Mr. Lindsey is an assistant to the President of the United States. He has the lapse. The deputy chief of staff, Mr. Ickes, he has a lapse. He finds documents, again, at the last minute. Mr. Gearan, he has a lapse. Again, every one of these people involved with the Whitewater team has a lapse. I have to suggest to you that it does raise real questions and is very troubling. That is why I think there are many people who believe that we have an obligation to finish this and to get the facts, and I think that if we were to move forward you would see even more documents be produced, more discoveries, more things that have not been turned over to this committee. I cannot believe given the tasks--and I am prepared to go through the list--that Mr. Ickes assigned to various people that all of the documents related to their Whitewater activities have been turned over to this committee. I yield the floor to my friend because the Senator has been more than gracious. I just wanted to raise this matter.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, the fact is that this letter--by the way, not so clearly, not so clearly--is what I consider to be a brilliant legal, scholastic exercise in extricating one's client from meeting the obligations that he would be required to meet pursuant to the subpoena that asked him to produce all relevant documents with respect to Whitewater. Brilliant. This is absolutely terrific. And this fellow, Allen B. Snyder, is one good lawyer. He is the lawyer who signed this letter. Let me tell you why. Analyze this; you have to agree, this is good. This is good. Listen to this, Mr. President. ``We have not produced''--this is the last sentence in this letter that says, here we give you these things, how we found them-- ``We have not produced, of course,''--gets you into believing, of course--``attorney-client privilege documents reflecting either Mr. Lindsey's communication with this firm''--oh, OK, all right, we are not going to ask about that. You are talking to your lawyer and saying, by the way, I have a problem, et cetera, whatever. We have some facts or are talking strategy, et cetera. That is what we consider to be privileged. By the way, it would seem that constitutional authorities would indicate in some cases that we would actually have the right to that documentation. So, ``* * * of course, attorney-client privilege documents reflecting either Mr. Lindsey's communications with this firm or--get this; now we search very carefully--``or his attorney-client privileged communication with private counsel for the President.'' He is withholding documents. We do not have those documents. We have not seen those documents. And he is now asserting for the first time that he has information. He did not know he had it before. He just remembered it. He just found it. He did not know it. But he now says, ``I've got documents that you have subpoenaed. But I'm not going to give them to you because, guess what, I had conversations with or communications with the President's counsel.'' Let me tell you something, as an assistant to the President, if he has communications and shares documents with a private counsel for the President, they are not privileged. And this Senate and the Congress has a right to know what that information is. Look, it may be that we are arguing over nothing. We have agreed to a methodology, a methodology of not attempting to provoke a court confrontation. I will tell you, I will ask for enforcement of the subpoena because this subpoena was served before the authorization of committee funds ran out. This response is carefully contrived, and the documents are produced after the committee goes out. Is it any wonder why reasonable people say, ``Why are you doing this? Why are you holding this?'' Is there any reason why newspapers say, ``How come you keep dribbling this thing out? What are you trying to hide?'' At the very least, it all seems to me that the majority counsel and the minority counsel have done this before. We can look at this information, see if it is relevant or not, and examine whether or not a claim of privilege is valid. I cannot see how it can be asserted, but if it is not relevant, we will not ask for it. We will agree to take a pass. I do not want to know whether he was discussing whether a football team or basketball team was going to win the game the night that they went to see it, or if he was in the company of the President, that he discussed that kind of thing. But if it is relevant, we have a right to it. If he communicated to the President's counsel, ``By the way, I'm worried about X, Y and Z,'' we have a right to that. Either we want the facts or we do not. Do we want to hide the facts? Let me say, as it relates to the proposition that we are not willing to set a time certain, I think that is bad. I think it is really bad. But I am willing to say, let us provide a period of time after the conclusion of the trial. We know, whether that trial concludes with a final verdict--guilty, innocent, hung, et cetera--that within 10 weeks after that trial, we will conclude. You have to start someplace. I do not like setting a time because I think again when you set a time line, you set a prescription for people looking to delay and get past that time line. That is what our friends in ``Men of Zeal'' said. And they were right. Again, this was authored by Senator Cohen and Senator Mitchell about Iran-Contra. They said, ``The committee's deadline provided a convenient stratagem for those who were determined not to cooperate.'' I suggest, given the manner in which these documents came forward, that this is part of the stratagem. When I see this letter, we know conclusively that we have not had an opportunity to examine documents that were subpoenaed. This is a very brilliant, lawyerly, scholarly letter. I read it for the first time, and it just jumped out at me. Then counsel told me they have attempted to get some kind of an agreement from Mr. Lindsey's counsel in order to inspect this material. They were told no. So where is the cooperation? If the White House has nothing to hide, where is that cooperation? It's a needle in a haystack. We want the facts and information--the needles--but we get the whole haystack, we do not get the critical information. This is just another example. Let me suggest to you, is it not great cooperation when lawyers tell their clients, ``What are you holding back?'' and ``You better not hold back''? I see a pattern here. I see some very bright lawyers saying, ``You can't withhold this stuff. You have memorandums all over this place. If someone comes over and says, `Where is that memorandum?' and you sent it to eight different people, where do you think we get these documents from?'' Some very capable lawyers would tell a client, ``I'm not going to be part of advising you to withhold.'' Perhaps, that is why we have been getting documents from them. Of course, that is an assumption on my part. There are a number of suspicious instances. We could take Susan Thomases and the repeated requests to her for records--two times, three times, four times before we get all of the information, before we get the logs that show the communications, key communications, information withheld from us. I think there are some very capable lawyers that she has representing her saying, ``Wait a minute. Wait a minute. They have asked you about these things. You can't withhold these things.'' You really think that a very capable lawyer like Ms. Thomases would not have looked at the diaries and logs as it relates to communications that she had during critical periods of time on or about the day of the suicide, or the day following the suicide, of Vince Foster? She would have missed these during that week? And it took us months to obtain this vital information. We have not been able to examine her. She broke her leg. We examined her twice. She was scheduled to come in a third time. Unfortunately, we could not do that because she said she broke her leg. What were we supposed to do? Drag her in there? Have her come in a wheelchair? I recognize the discomfort level that my friends and colleagues on the other side would have as it relates to an indefinite extension. I understand that. But as a practical matter, if we receive $600,000, and spend it at the rate of approximately $150,000 a month, Mr. President, we are talking about 4 months. That is the practical side of this. We could be doing that business without rancor, doing it to the best of our ability. We may not be able to complete all of the work as we would like. If there were facts and information that clearly demonstrated that we had to go forward, I am sure that my colleagues would then say, maybe reluctantly, we have to do that. That is the position we would be placed in. You know, the editorials indicate that we should go forward. They also say that there is a caveat, a clear caveat, as it relates to the work of the committee, if we begin to appear to be unfair, if we appear to be partisan in terms of being demanding, and that we, those of us who are pressing to finish our work, could feel the political fallout. But there are what we call common sense, common decency, in handling the inquiry in a manner that is proper. I think we can do that. I would like to proceed in that manner. I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity, at least, to share these thoughts with you. I hope that between now and tomorrow, when we come to the floor again, that I have put forth something in a manner in a way in which we could possibly move forward. I suggested some way to begin to resolve this, such as taking a period of time after the completion of the trial. I said 10 weeks. My friend may feel that is too long, but let us see if we cannot do it. Again, there is a finite amount of time, constrained by very limited resources, resources of $600,000. There has been an endeavor by my friends to put forth a proposal for 5 weeks starting now and $185,000. I think we have to say even if that is the most good-faith offer they can make--and I do not question the fact that my colleague advances that in good faith--I hope that my friend, Senator Sarbanes, will understand that it will not deal with the question of access to those witnesses. Again, we may never have access to them. I admit that. I am not trying to score debating points here. What I am trying to do is tell you clearly where we are troubled, what some of those facts are and see if we cannot work out a way cooperatively to go forward.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess following the remarks of Senator Pell and Senator Murkowski.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Therefore, I ask for its first reading.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would inquire of the Chair if H.R. 497 has arrived from the House of Representatives.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.