Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of calendar item No. 340, Senate Resolution 219.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Correct.

Mr. D'AMATO. I understand that. On the other side, there will be the chorus, What are you hiding? For every editorial you can produce, I can produce one, two, three, four and you can produce some, and back and forth. What does that achieve? My gosh, what have we advanced? So I am--and I am not asking you for an answer now--I am asking you to consider attempting to deal with this impasse, so that we do not have to come down here and have our colleagues vote, line up on one side, those vote to cut off debate, cut off the filibuster, and those who take the opposite possible positions and all the various characterizations that are going to flow--from both sides, absolutely totally well-meant. All right. So I hope I have covered the waterfront on that. It may be that we cannot find a way to resolve this. But I am suggesting that I am certainly willing to spare us further debate here, further time here, and let us be able to do the best we can, given that we cannot control all the circumstances in this investigation. Some of it is beyond our ability to control. I yield the floor, and I thank my friend for his courtesies in giving me the opportunity at various times to make some points that I thought were important.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I believe, without imposing upon my colleague, that concludes our discussion with respect to going forward on the Whitewater resolution.

Mr. D'AMATO. If the Senator will yield for an observation.

Mr. D'AMATO. That is at least an imaginative image, fishing in the Dead Sea. I like that.

Mr. D'AMATO. I am first to admit that. I am first to admit that. What I am trying to do is to say there is a good faith offer, an attempt to wind this up in a manner that does not detract from everything and everybody because there are going to be those who say in the drumbeat of the political spin doctors on one side saying the Senator from New York is attempting to keep this going for political reasons.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, last week, my colleagues on the Democratic side objected to us taking up this very same resolution by way of unanimous consent essentially to empower the committee, to authorize the committee to do its job, to finish the work that it has started. Make no mistake about this: This is not an argument about funds; this is not an argument about a deadline. This really comes down to the crucial question of whether or not we are going to do our job and to fulfill the constitutional responsibilities and to get the facts. By the way, it may not be pleasant. Those facts may be very distressing or disturbing to some. Let me suggest that they may be disturbing because some may suspect that all kinds of misdeeds may have been committed by people in the administration or close to the administration, by friends of the administration, and suspect the possibility of attempting to impede investigations. But, indeed, there may be findings that there were no misdeeds--none. Some people may be upset by that. There may be findings that indeed there was improper conduct and activities. Regardless of which way it is, whether it is to clear away the clouds of suspicion, or whether the ultimate findings are that there was serious misconduct on the part of people in the administration, we have a duty to get the facts. If those facts are exculpatory, if they clear away the doubts, then fine, let the chips fall where they may. To oppose the proper work of this committee, which is authorized, pursuant to almost unanimous consent--96 to 3--to undertake this investigation, is to say very clearly that there may be facts that may not be exculpatory, they may be damaging. Now, look, it is easy to suggest that this committee has conducted its work in what one would call an unfair partisan manner. I say, let us look at the record. Yes, we have had suggestions and, yes, there have been subpoenas initially drafted, but not served, that may have been overly broad. That is not unusual. You negotiate to determine what the scope should be. Al Smith, the Governor of New York State, coined an expression. He used to say, when there were controversies, ``Let us look at the record.'' If one were to look at the record, you would ultimately find, notwithstanding that there may have been negotiations between the Democrats and Republicans, that ultimately, in almost all cases, over the life of this committee and its predecessor, agreement has been reached. On only one occasion--out of the dozens of subpoenas that were issued and requests for witnesses' testimony--did we really have one disagreement that could not be solved in a bipartisan manner. To come forth at this time and suggest that this is politically inspired is at variance with the record. Al Smith said, ``Let us look at the record.'' That record indicates, quite clearly, that notwithstanding the times that we may have had differences, we were able to surmount them in a way that brought clarity and dignity to our work. We may not have found what some would characterize as the smoking gun. But, indeed, ours is not to anticipate what will or will not be found. The work of this committee is to gather the facts, my friends, not to prejudge, not to offer speculation, not to suggest that, well, what do you do then if you unearth some terrible, horrible chilling thing. Ours is to gather the facts. If those facts clear away the clouds of doubt that may exist, fine. But I suggest to you that there was sufficient room, at least, to say there are some very real concerns--repeated memory lapses, tied to factual situations; diaries that people kept notes in, which mysteriously turn up after the work of this committee could have come to an end; missing records that turn up. Contradictory testimony of Secret Service Officer O'Neill and young Mr. Castleton, two people who have no reason to make up stories, cast very real doubts and concerns as to the manner in which key documents that were removed from Mr. Foster's office were handled. Who requested the movement of those documents? What were those documents? Officer O'Neill says that he saw the first lady's chief of staff, Maggie Williams, removing files. It was very clear in his testimony. Very clear. As a matter of fact, it is so clear that I think most people, if they have heard his account, would believe it. And I can assure my friends and colleagues on the other side that I will go over that narrative very carefully if they continue to oppose us going forward and orchestrate what is a filibuster. I do not think it behooves the interest of the committee, the Senate, Democrats or Republicans, or the entire political process, given the grave doubts that people have with respect to Washington, that we fail in our duties and obligations to continue to do our work in an expeditious a manner as reasonable, dealing with the circumstances that we have, recognizing that there are key witnesses that are unavailable. Mr. President, those witnesses may never be available. I am the first to suggest that. They may never be available. But at least we will have done the best we can do. If we file a report based upon all of the work, our best efforts, then we can say that we have discharged our responsibility. The American people have a right to know, and we have an obligation to get the facts. Some people say, ``Why do you continue with this? People are bored.'' It is not our job to be concerned with whether or not people are bored. The question is not whether there are sensational headlines that will come out of revelations. The question is: What are the facts? Were there misdeeds, an abuse of power, an attempt to cover up? Was there an attempt to stop investigations from taking place? And then going to the heart of the issue, was there misuse of taxpayers' moneys in Little Rock? That is the question. If there was, who was responsible? As a result, was there a concerted effort to keep these facts from being revealed to the American people? I am sorry that this matter has been drawn out as it has. Notwithstanding those who would claim that this was deliberate, that is not the case. Nor would I differ with my friends if they were to say that there were dates that we could have held more hearings. Certainly, but that would not have permitted us to complete the work of this committee. It absolutely would not have. Indeed, it would have left a situation where there were still numbers of documents that we have no reason to believe would have been produced any earlier, and numbers of witnesses, including Judge Hale, who I believe the committee wants to at least make a good-faith effort to bring before the committee. And again--and I know it is difficult--I think we want to attempt to be as fair and reasonable in our presentations of our cases as we possibly can be. I do not know the truth or falsity of what Judge Hale is reported to have said. I do not know whether he can shed any light on any factual material. It certainly is important enough to make the effort. If, indeed, at the conclusion of the trial when we subpoena him--together, hopefully, and I have every reason to believe that my Democratic colleagues will join in that because that has been the indication of the ranking member--his lawyers may assert and raise the constitutional questions about self-incrimination. That may take place. Then we could say, ``Well, Senator, why did you do this?'' I admit we have no assurance that any of these witnesses that we want will be forthcoming. But, by gosh, we have an obligation to do the job, thoroughly, correctly, and in the right way. All the arguments about money, and how much has been spent, is a red herring. There is no truth to that. This committee has been rather frugal. Indeed, if you want to look at the costs, hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent correctly in gathering the evidence, taking depositions--these transcripts cost thousands of dollars a day. That is part of the cost. This has not been a wasteful exercise that costs $30 million. I hear people say, ``Why are you wasting money--$30 million?" Let me say again, the committee's work has been extended. It has been extended because the special counsel has asked us as it relates to key times and dates to withhold from the subpoenaing of information, to withhold from the subpoenaing witnesses. We have worked with them. I think that is responsible. Did I want to get those witnesses in? Yes, absolutely. There is a degree of responsibility that this committee must exercise. It does not mean that we cede to the special counsel all authority and say, ``When you raise an objection, we shall not go forward,'' but in good conscience we have attempted to act in a way that would not jeopardize the important work of the special counsel. Mr. President, I think that if the minority continues to thwart, as it can, if it votes against cloture--and there will be a cloture vote scheduled--then I think they are very clearly saying to the American people that they are afraid of the facts that will be revealed. There is no doubt in my mind this is a carefully orchestrated opposition being raised, and that orchestration comes from the White House. Indeed, packets of information have been distributed to denigrate individual Members. That is not what a White House should be about. That is not what this investigation should be about--people assigned tasks, responsibilities of gathering information on a Senator from the DNC. That is not right. That is not fair. This Senator has known about that for quite a while. I bring it up now for the first time because, Mr. President, if we want democracy to work, then we have to stop these dirty little games, the dirty tricks of attempting to embarrass, attempting to hurt so that one is diverted, one's attention is diverted from the facts. Now, Mr. President, I believe that we could come to a resolution. I have not spelled out any particular methodology. It seems to me that we know with a good degree of certainty that the trial will be concluded. There may be appeals. So what? That will not preclude us from asking for witnesses to come in. Indeed, their lawyers may or may not assert constitutional rights. At least at that point we have given to the special counsel the opportunity to do his work. He may disagree. The committee may say, ``Look, we want to resolve this and go forward.'' On the other hand, the committee may say, reasonably, we should not. At that point, I would be first to say we may have to conclude, or certainly there is no further reason to continue going forward if there are not other areas that have not been successfully covered. It would seem to me we would be in a position to look into the question of the leases that have been made with respect to Mr. McDougal and the State. We would be able to look into the Arkansas Development Finance Authority, the propriety of its acts, the relationships that it had or did not have with various people, the probity of those--all of those areas that are left unresolved. I am not going to take the time at this point to go into them, but I will. And I will spell them out in detail as we will spell out the testimony of Mrs. Williams, Maggie Williams, in detail and the testimony of young Mr. Castleton and the testimony of the officer, which is clearly at variance with what her memory and what her reflections are to such a degree that one has to say that there are very real issues that are not resolved. I will do that. Mr. President, I think we have an opportunity to do the business of the people, not to create these doubts--what are my Democratic friends worried about? What is the White House worried about? What are they hiding? If there is nothing there, then, fine, the committee will fold its tent, as it should. It will conclude. But it has an obligation to first have the real opportunity to conclude its work as we should, as honest factfinders. That is what this is about, being honest factfinders. Nothing more, nothing less. I hope that we would not engage in the kind of accusations that oftentimes come about where there are contentious matters, matters of conscience. There may be some of my colleagues who absolutely feel that the only reason we are going forward is to seek to discredit politically. There may be some on my side who seek partisan advantage for that purpose. But irrespective of those feelings, we have an obligation. The obligation is to get the facts and to try to do it in a manner that really demonstrates to the American people that notwithstanding contentious issues--issues that could very easily be blown out of proportion by partisanship--that we are above it. Now, I am not suggesting to you that reasonable people may not have reason to disagree with some of my decisions or actions on that committee. But I believe if one were to examine his or her conscience, they would have to say that the chairman has endeavored to be fair. Yes, fair; yes, thorough; yes, comprehensive; but, above all, fair. That does not mean we have to agree on every issue. It seems to me that one way which is not recommended, a recommended course, is to continue our work and look at the conclusion of the trial as a point in which we would look to set some kind of reasonable time, and that we would agree if there was work that still needed to be done, that we would take up whether or not it should be extended. I do not see how you can set a limit based upon a date certain--what if the trial does go 2 months, and we say we have to wrap up the work of the committee by April 5. That means that those key witnesses would be precluded. That means that we set a timeline. It has been suggested, and I know referenced by some of my colleagues in the debate, that when you set a deadline for the completion of congressional investigations, decisions are often dictated by political circumstances and the need to avoid the appearance of partisanship. This is what was done in the Iran-Contra case. They set a particular timeline. What that did is set a convenient drop-dead date by which lawyers sought to delay and wait out the investigation. My distinguished colleagues, the former Democratic majority leader and Senator Cohen, suggested that should not have been done. Here is a quote: ``The committee's deadline provided a convenient stratagem for those who were determined not to cooperate.'' That is in this book, ``Men of Zeal.'' I have to suggest that, given the appearance of documents at the last minute--and I am not going to argue the merits-- but I have to suggest there has been a history of documents coming in conveniently late. The last of them was the miraculous production of the Bruce Lindsey documents. Mr. Lindsey, the assistant to President Clinton, his close confidant and friend, testified before the committee, that he did not take notes--he did not remember taking notes. He was asked specifically about it. His lawyer was requested to look and see and to make a proper search. He did undertake this so- called review and this search, and lo and behold, after the committee's funding ended, guess what? On a Friday, the miraculous production. Always on a Friday. Always late on a Friday. This time I think it was about 7 or 8 o'clock Friday. Why? To avoid the news, avoid the news. The White House got these documents, I understand, on a Wednesday. But they did not make them available to the committee until Friday. What is that all about? Managing the flow of information. That is managing the flow of facts. Is that right? Is that proper? I will tell you what it appears like to me. It appears to me that my Democratic friends are so interested in the management of the facts, facts that may be embarrassing, that they are willing to scuttle our constitutional obligations. That is just wrong and that is what leads people to say: What are you hiding? What are you hiding? Do I believe that all my colleagues are in league with that? No, I do not. But I believe that there are those who are so intent upon stopping this investigation that they have laid down a hard and fast rule. They are probably polling right now to ascertain whether or not this is going to hurt their credibility or not. I think whenever you want to end a duly constituted investigation when there are substantial open questions and work to do, people have to say: Why? Why are you keeping the committee from doing its work? I think we can do our work. I think we can do it again in a reasonably fast way, but in a way that meets our obligations. I do not look to draw this out. I said to this committee, to the Rules Committee, when we sought authorization, it was my hope that we could keep this matter from continuing into the political season. I still think we can deal with this in a manner which means that it would end sometime in June, late June or maybe even earlier. I think we really can. But there has to be a starting point that is reasonable and will assure that we have some opportunity to get the facts. If we never get the opportunity to examine the witnesses--and that is what would take place if we had an arbitrary deadline of April and that trial is not over--we will be denied this opportunity. I recognize they can take appeals. They could take appeals for years. I am not suggesting we wait until the appellate process is over. That is not the case at all. Mr. President, I am going to ask that my colleagues on the Democratic side consider an attempt to deal with this in a way that will not put us to the test of coming to vote to end this filibuster. They should not be filibustering this. We have other things to do. We have important things to do.

Mr. D'AMATO. Sure.

Mr. D'AMATO. I do not know if my friend is finished, and without losing the right to the floor, I would like to make an observation if he would care to comment.

Mr. D'AMATO. This is the first time that I have seen the letter conveying the notes. I guess we got these last Friday. They did not really come into our possession until Saturday. That would be a week ago Saturday? Yes, last Saturday. Last Saturday. So when we got these notes, I think you have to understand very clearly that Mr. Lindsey testified to the committee that he did not take notes. Then there is another encounter----

Mr. D'AMATO. Sure. I understand.

Mr. D'AMATO. Sure, and you must recognize that there are legitimately held views that people themselves feel strongly about without any partisan motives being attached to their feeling; that they say we want to end that. I understand that, and I am saying to you that I have a number of Members who do not want to compromise as it relates even to a time line and they suggest we are going to be back in the same problem again. But there comes a point in time when you have to make the best of the situation. I am suggesting possibly we explore looking at a time certain, from which we say we will conclude, that being the conclusion of the trial, one way or the other, if it is a hung jury, whatever it might be. We may not be able to get any of those witnesses.

Mr. D'AMATO. I really tried as hard as possible to attempt to put forth an offer----

Mr. D'AMATO. Again, I have not heard any response, but I have indicated that, obviously, the committee would be very hard pressed to continue its work past 4 months. That is No. 1. At $150,000 a month, in some cases even more, and particularly if we are going to attempt to conclude this and take the necessary depositions, et cetera, that is about the time frame that we are talking about. It is reasonable to assume we are going to talk about a trial that lasts anywhere in the area of 6 to 8 weeks. I suggested we take a time line from the conclusion of that trial and attempt to use that as the date. So I have given an opportunity to our Democratic colleagues and friends to consider this, instead of just being placed in a position of those of us who would come to the conclusion, rightfully or wrongfully, that there may be people who are calling and orchestrating this from the White House who just do not want those facts to come out, whatever they may be. I do not know what they will be. I tell you, if they are exculpatory, if they clear the record, if they clear the clouds away, fine, so be it. While Senator Dole has indicated previously the need and necessity to keep investigations and hearings from going into the political season-- and I recognize that and I have addressed that--there is the experience that our colleagues and the former majority leader had during that same period of time. In his book, ``Men of Zeal,'' it was said that to set a time line is basically to encourage people to look at delay. We can continue this back and forth, but I hope my colleague will consider what I suggested as a way to attempt to resolve this without us becoming involved in other matters. Let me say this to you. Tomorrow I will advance, if we do not get an extension and if my colleagues continue to vote against cloture--and I have no reason to believe my Democratic colleagues will not come in here and, to a man, vote against proceeding and we will continue this filibuster--then we will go through the record very clearly and attempt to make the case why it is we are seeking to continue, what facts we are still seeking, what information, what witnesses, in detail. They can still vote that particular way. But then there will come a point in which we will attempt to do the work of the committee. It may not be as neat, it may not be as tidy, but I can assure my friend and colleague that we will persist. I think when I say we are going to undertake something and I am committed to seeing to it that we do the best job we can, that is something we can count on. I put forth an offer that I think I can get substantial support for. There will be some of my colleagues, as I am sure there will be a number of yours, who are adamantly opposed to any kind of compromise. I recognize that, and I recognize, in all due sincerity, that my friend probably has a number of colleagues who just do not want to agree to even 5 weeks. I recognize that, too.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be deemed read the third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2778, just received from the House.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. For the information of all Senators, tomorrow the Senate will resume the pending motion to proceed to Senate Resolution 227, the Whitewater legislation. It is also possible that the Senate will begin consideration of S. 942, the small business regulatory reform bill. Rollcall votes are therefore possible during Thursday's session of the Senate.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until the hour of 9:30 a.m., Thursday, March 7, that immediately following the prayer, the Journal of the proceedings be deemed approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and there then be a period for morning business until the hour of 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Feinstein, 15 minutes; Senator Reid, 15 minutes; Senator Dorgan, 20 minutes; Senator Baucus, 10 minutes, Senator Thomas, 30 minutes.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, on that note, let me say this. The Banking Committee has been waiting for months now for the President to fill vacancies at the Federal Reserve Board. It was just a little less than 2 weeks ago last Saturday, March 2--there are two vacancies, two other vacancies aside from Mr. Greenspan--I guess it was about 10 days ago when the President indicated that he was going to recommend not only Chairman Greenspan but two other people, Alice Rivlin as the Vice Chairman, and Lawrence Meyer as a Governor. Since this announcement from the White House--and I have indicated publicly that we would move expeditiously to take up these nominees--we have not received any word and the Federal Reserve has been forced to adopt various rules to address this gap so that Chairman Greenspan could carry on his work. This continues to be a very critical post, and these positions are critical. I hope the administration will move with some speed and alacrity in sending those nominations over to us so we can move. I pledge to the body here and to the administration and to the President that we will move as quickly as we possibly can. We will set up a hearing--if it means in the afternoon, if it means whatever time convenient to the nominees--to deal with these important nominations, because they are important and they are critical. We want to move this. I hope they will send those nominations over. Certainly they should send over Mr. Greenspan at this point in time. We could dispose of that. I do not understand why they would not have Mrs. Rivlin ready, given her long stewardship in Federal Government and the fact that she has had all her clearances, et cetera. So at least two of those positions are something we would be willing to move on very expeditiously. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am pleased to take the opportunity to acknowledge the 43 years of dedicated service of Diane Kaseman, upon her retirement. A native of Rochester, NY, Diane began her distinguished career on March 27, 1953. Diane began her tenure here on Capitol Hill as a receptionist for Representative Kenneth Keating. She then moved to the Senate and worked for Senator John Sherman Cooper and has since served under the administrations of 11 separate Senate Sergeants at Arms, where she has worked with the service and computer facilities staff of the U.S. Senate. Diane's accomplishments have not been limited to her professional career, as she has endlessly devoted herself to volunteer activities benefiting not only her colleagues, but also many charitable organizations. In 1953, Diane actively sought and obtained approval from the Senate Rules Committee for the establishment of the Senate Staff Club. Founded in 1954 with 150 members as a social organization for all Senate employees, the club has sponsored a variety of social, civic, and charitable activities. Under the capable and dynamic leadership of Diane, the club's first treasurer, the Staff Club has grown to over 3,000 members. The organization has been responsible for a number of variety shows, dances, and dinners, however, an integral part of the club has been charitable activities. Diane Kaseman has been instrumental in the success of these efforts. In 1955 Diane helped to form a Senate hospitalization plan, which is still active under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Senate. The Staff Club was asked by the Red Cross to become part of its blood donor drive in 1978 and has continued this support. Diane has been a driving force behind this noteworthy campaign and has dedicated many hours of hard work to ensure that the Senate blood drive meets its goal. As a result of her efforts, the Senate Staff Club has received four Outstanding Merit Awards for its contributions. Diane won the 22d Annual Roll Call Congressional Staff Award in 1953 as one of the founders of the Senate Staff Club. In 1981, Diane Kaseman received the Sid Yudain Award in recognition of ``her dedication to the well-being of her coworkers and for the generous expenditure of her time, talent, and personal resources in the service of the congressional community.'' Diane was also commended by U.S. Capitol Chief of Police James M. Powell for her unending assistance and patience during a special 5-week assignment in 1984 with the U.S. Capitol Police in establishing a system for providing security badges for all employees of the Senate. Diane's contributions have been vast and effectual. She enjoys volunteering her time and special talents in helping others and has contributed to the Red Cross, Children's Hospital, Walter Reed Hospital, Saint Joseph's food drive, Hungary relief, Mexico's earthquake relief, and Help for Retarded Children, among others. As U.S. Senator from New York, I am particularly pleased to congratulate Diane Kaseman for her outstanding contributions and dedicated service of the past 43 years and wish Diane continued success in all her future endeavors.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a joint resolution that disapproves of the administration's certification of Mexico. I am joined by my colleagues Senator Helms, Senator McConnell, and Senator Pressler in presenting this resolution and urge its immediate passage. 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. I will speak on this issue in more detail tomorrow. I encourage my colleagues to join us in this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a joint resolution that disapproves of the administration's certification of Mexico. I am joined by my colleagues Senator Helms, Senator McConnell, and Senator Pressler in presenting this resolution and urge its immediate passage. 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. I will speak on this issue in more detail tomorrow. I encourage my colleagues to join us in this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. The Senator raised a very good point, because we have heard ``50,000 pages of documents being produced in response to requests,'' but the fact of the matter is, as Senator Mack pointed out yesterday that it is not the sheer quantity of documents that matter, it is the quality and relevance; for example, documents that were under the jurisdiction of key people with the so-called Whitewater defense team, the group that was attempting to deal with press inquiries and other inquiries, headed by Mr. Ickes. We just received about 200 pages, literally, last week. Incredible. Now, we have requested that--