Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I am not going to. I want to take questions, but I want to yield for some questions which I think Senator Thomas wants to----

Mr. D'AMATO. I indicated heretofore that I would not--and I again cited none other than an authority on this than Senator Mitchell as to why a fixed date I believe would be counterproductive. Having said that, certainly April 3 is absolutely unacceptable, or April 5--is guaranteed to deny us essential information and evidence that we would need. There is no way that trial will be concluded. Let me say something else. I would be willing to say that at some reasonable period of time after the conclusion of the trial, whether it results in whatever--an acquittal, a conviction, or a hung jury--that we then, because there are practicalities, an attempt to end this, whether it is 8 weeks thereafter, that we would, and then a time for the writing of a report. But even that is dangerous because then we run into the problem of having certain attorneys looking to take advantage of every opportunity to run the clock.

Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly.

Mr. D'AMATO. That is absolutely correct. It would be impossible, and we may or may not be able to get them in any event. That would certainly preclude the examination of McDougal and would preclude us from even considering whether we might want to immunize him, to get his testimony, whether or not the special counsel might agree after that trial to us providing them with immunity, and also other witnesses, Judge Hale and about a dozen others who may or may not be testifying. Let me say, it has been indicated that there is going to be public testimony at this trial. The scope of the trial--given that it is a criminal trial, and given the rules of evidence--will not permit the kind of latitude that would give a full, detailed story as to what did or did not take place. Indeed, there may be testimony that we seek or require that will never be asked of these witnesses at a public trial. Indeed, all the questions may be answered. We may have no need to bring some of them in. We may not have to. But to prejudge it now and to say that we are going to cut it off now is wrong. It is wrong. We should not set an arbitrary time limit for it.

Mr. D'AMATO. Again, I appreciate my colleague's inquiry because we are now talking--by the way, in our letter, we expressed some concern that this trial would be adjourned much longer than the beginning of the year. They indicated they thought January and possibly early February. That is going to be going off next week. We are there at that point. There have been other delays. It just seemed to us that as time went along, as we attempted to bring in Judge Hale, in particular meeting with the difficulties of Judge Hale's lawyer--the distinguished counsel had a number of arguments before the Supreme Court. He told our counsel that he could not even consider bringing his client in because he had to prepare him, and he would not be able to prepare and be thoroughly briefed until after he made these arguments. One of those arguments was postponed due to the snowstorm we had. I have to tell you that we are making every effort. It was unusual, almost unheard of--the Supreme Court's adjournment of a matter that had been docketed and set for schedule. But the Court found that the circumstances were so difficult that they granted an adjournment. People could not make it in, participants in that case. That was put off until the end of January or very early February. That is a practical matter that made it impossible for him to prepare the witness, to bring him in. We were just not ever able to get that concurrence. Notwithstanding that, we might have had strong objection because the independent counsel did indicate he was opposed. We were still willing to attempt to bring him in. Let me say this to you. Once we began to hit February, the end of January, February, you then run into a question of responsibility of this body in conjunction with and cooperation with the independent counsel. You really do. We could have insisted that the attorney formally raise the fact that his client would assert the privilege against self-incrimination. There is something more important. Rather than run the risk of jeopardizing--because we were so close to that trial, so close to the proposed trial of March--putting that off or creating an impediment to the special counsel going forward. I think in a responsible way we did what was absolutely necessary and did not attempt to create a clash or a crisis with the prerogatives that we had, which we could have exercised, but I think would have been injudicious.

Mr. D'AMATO. I am glad my colleague has raised that point. I think one has to read the letter in its entirety, not just part of it. It was our very real intent to bring forward and to move in an expeditious manner with these hearings, but never without regard to the independent counsel's investigation. Even in that letter of October 2--which does not contain the totality of our discussions either with the independent counsel or with the minority--indicates that we were going to be very mindful of the independent counsel's efforts. That letter, if you read it in its totality, indicates we are going to be very mindful of not impacting on the special counsel's work adversely.

Mr. D'AMATO. As my distinguished colleague may be aware, the Senate resolution that empowered us to go forward indicated that we should coordinate our activities with the investigation of the counsel. We have attempted to do that.

Mr. D'AMATO. The Senator from Alaska is absolutely correct. He is absolutely correct. I think our colleague, Senator Faircloth, has indicated there should be no price placed upon the integrity of the White House. The fact is, the cost for the hearings, and given the work, the witnesses, the volume of work, sifting through the haystack to attempt to get the needles--it has been difficult. The lack of cooperation of various witnesses; the lack of cooperation with various agencies; the lack of cooperation and candor with many, many officials; total failure to recollect events, even though the diaries put them at various places doing various things; even the transmittal of documents when occasioned by distress calls. I have to tell my colleague that the committee's work must continue and that we have limited it, both initially and now, to very modest sums. Although $600,000 is a lot of money, if we look at the Iran- Contra investigations and hearings--and again those were almost 10 years ago--that cost was $3,300,000. I think it was $3,298,000 at that point in time. If we were to get this appropriation, and I believe we will, we would still have spent less than $2 million. I am not suggesting that is not a considerable sum. But I am suggesting that the work that we have done, the charge and the responsibility, is important. And in the words of Senator Byrd, it should be continued. It is our ``constitutional responsibility.'' Certainly it was true then and it is true now. Certainly Congress met its responsibility in fully funding the Iran-Contra hearings. Again, if we look at the words of two of the Members who served on that committee, they said they made a mistake by setting an arbitrary date for concluding the hearing. I think it is disingenuous for people to say--by the way, I understand it comes out of the White House spin doctors--that $30 million has been spent. And we have heard it here today. ``Do you know how much food that could buy? Do you know how many people that could help?'' This committee has not spent $30 million. The work of the independent counsel was decided upon by none other than the President of the United States and the Attorney General. They requested that the independent counsel undertake his work and there have been 11 or 12 convictions or pleas of guilty. And he does continue his work. He has one capacity. That is to ascertain criminal wrongdoing and to prosecute it where it is found. We have another. To simply lump it in and then say to the American people, ``This is politics, and they are spending all this money in search of we know not what it is,'' I simply have to say that is not correct. And it is not factual. And it is not dealing with our colleagues in a fair and even-handed manner, in the same manner in which they would like to be dealt with.

Mr. D'AMATO. I thank my friend and colleague. The Senator from Alaska has served on the committee and knows and has felt the manner in which the committee in many cases has been almost stifled. I think the point is inexorable. I do not think the Senate could possibly discharge its duties by truncating or terminating its work by setting an arbitrary deadline, one that particularly would ensure that we would not have access to a number of witnesses whose testimony may be very key, and as a result of relevant information and facts it leads you to possibly other facts that one must discover, other areas that one must look at. That is why I think any thoughtful analysis of the committee's work, where we are today, would lead one to believe, as Senator Mitchell once indicated very clearly in his book, ``Men of Zeal,'' do not put an arbitrary end date for any hearing, even if the intent--and I am paraphrasing--is to avoid partisan politics. That was the intent in Iran-Contra, not running it into the political season. That was my intent. That was the intent of the distinguished ranking member. There is no doubt, I hope he would not have questioned, or did not question, the sincerity of the Senator from moving forward in that manner. That was my intent. That continues to be my intent. I also suggest that it seems to me that I do not know how my colleagues can know for certain what may be revealed or may not be revealed. I do not think they can. I do not think they know the documents that may or may not have been produced. I do not think that they are aware of what the testimony of various witnesses we would like to bring in will be, but certainly it would appear that the White House is very intent, and my colleagues are intent, in order to protect them--and I am paraphrasing the New York Times editorial--to protect them from embarrassment. It is better to get the facts out now and let the chips fall where they may than to continue this exercise in this matter. It will not dissuade the chairman and the committee from doing its job by simply charging partisan politics. That has not been the case. It will not be the case. I will move as expeditiously as the events and facts permit to end the work of this committee, particularly the public hearings, but that will be based on facts, not an arbitrary date. I answer my colleague in saying we should not set an arbitrary date. It is exactly the situation we find ourselves in today. By the way, if we reflect on the words, and I read them half a dozen times today, that our friend said--the parallel between what took place then, bureaucrats holding back information, looking at a date in which the inquiry would terminate, attorneys keeping their clients from coming forward, et cetera, and delaying and obfuscating--it is the same pattern that we see repeating itself. It is, I think. I am sorry that I agreed to a date. I did not contemplate that this would take place. Now, you never get credit from the other side in attempting to be fair. You just do not. But I will attempt to be fair and to say to them, not all of this has been occasioned by some kind of a diabolical political plot by my colleagues or the Democrats or the White House. That would be unfair. Some has been occasioned by attorneys who are looking to protect their clients. And, so, they have engaged in a pattern, it seems to me, of withholding, having them testify in that manner. At least the clients have insisted upon it, or maybe witnesses, who said I cannot recall anything.

Mr. D'AMATO. I watched you now for quite a period of time. I have not interrupted you. When I yield the floor, then you can ask whatever questions you wish. If I am here, I will attempt to answer them. The fact of the matter is that there has been a persistent pattern of delay, obfuscation and deliberate memory loss. When this matter gets to the floor next week, we will go through it. We will go through, for example, incidents where Mrs. Clinton, the First Lady, right after the death, or soon after the death of Vincent Foster, makes a phone call to Susan Thomases. Susan Thomases comes in and testifies to us she does not recall the phone call. By the way, this is on, I believe, July 22. I will have the record in front of me. This is after the death, and they are now going to conduct the investigation as it relates to what papers may or may not be in Mr. Foster's office, looking for possibly a suicide note. She would have the committee and the American people believe--I think it is absolutely incredible--that at 7:57, a phone call from Little Rock, AR, made by the First Lady to her hotel, that she did not get it. The First Lady was on the phone for 3 minutes. ``Maybe the operator got it.'' At 8:01, 1 minute after that, she admits to paging Mr. Nussbaum. Let me tell you why she admitted it, because she would have feigned recollection there, too, in my opinion. You see, because Mr. Nussbaum had an assistant, and that assistant indicated Mr. Nussbaum said Susan Thomases called him, so she could not very well deny that call. But, believe me, if there was any way for her to do it, she would have done it. This is one of the most capable lawyers in America, described as a lady who has the ``juice.'' ``She has the juice,'' they said. She walks into the White House whenever she wants. She is a close confidant, a friend, a counselor. Guess what Mr. Nussbaum's assistant, Mr. Neuwirth, says in depositions and testimony? He says--I am paraphrasing, but we will get it on the record with absolute precision because I know my colleague wants that. We will get that absolute precision. The First Lady was not happy. The First Lady was not happy with the manner of investigation, that there would be unfettered access into Mr. Foster's office. We asked about that call and, of course, remember, we have absolute proof, phone logs--if we did not have the phone logs, they would deny anything and everything. I will give you examples of this. As Senator Domenici has indicated, I am not going to just sit here and have those who would take our work and our good efforts and simply attempt to politicize them for their own purposes. That is my observation. I think they ought to be ashamed of themselves for doing that. We have worked together too long and hard in a spirit of bipartisanship. But if they want to throw that out and just do the bidding of the White House and carry their water, that is their decision. As the Washington Post said--and I just quoted that editorial--``to almost an embarrassing degree.'' Let me tell you, when we asked Mrs. Thomases about this call--she said she was reaching out. It was a touchy-feely call. When we asked about the other calls she made--and there were 13 or 14 within a hour and a half--to Nussbaum, calls to the Chief of Staff office, almost frantic. She was reaching out to touch someone. There is an ad about that. By the way, we have not been able to examine her yet. Only because we received logs and notes that indicate she had a communication from Mrs. Clinton's scheduler saying, ``Come down to Washington to see us,'' and she did come; the only reason we know she went over to see her is because the White House logs maintained by the Secret Service indicate that. Lawyers were meeting--a lawyer--Mr. Barnett was meeting with Mrs. Clinton to review various documents, and documents were indeed turned over to Mr. Barnett on that date. We said, ``Did you recall meeting Mrs. Clinton?'' She was upstairs for an hour and a half. I believe that date was July 27, but I have not looked at the records for a while. ``No.'' ``Did you meet with Mrs. Clinton?'' ``I do not recall.'' ``Did your scheduler tell you?'' ``I do not recall.'' Look, that is absurd. We are not talking about incidental events. We are talking about critical times and junctures. We are talking about a pattern. That is what we see taking place. So we have not been dealt with fairly. We have not had candid testimony from numerous witnesses. The pattern continues. And there are those who say, ``Why are you doing this?'' I say, why are you afraid of getting the facts? The only reason I am forced to editorialize, or at least sum up what I see at this point in time, is because of the opposition of the other side to permit us to do our work. So that, then, puts me in a very peculiar and difficult position, one that I have resisted in terms of making these observations public and making them with more precision and preciseness. But we will do that. We will have no choice but to do that. We will have no choice but to decide, when we do not have all of the facts--and that is why we are making a mistake by pushing this at this point in time, instead of saying, OK, we will permit x numbers of dollars, and let us see if we cannot wind this up within a reasonable period of time after you get access to the necessary witnesses, particularly those who may or may not be called to testify but that the special prosecutor objects to. I see my friend wants to raise a question. Certainly, if he wants to raise that question, I will take it.

Mr. D'AMATO. Let me suggest that by simply saying this is politics, this is politics, this is politics, this is politics, it reminds me of the adage that if you repeat it over and over and over and over, you will draw people from what it is we are doing. I think this is a well- orchestrated attempt by the Democrats, by the minority, to have just that, to have us forget the paper trail, to have us forget the witnesses who deliberately --Senator, I will yield to you when I am ready to yield to you. Senator, I have not interrupted you once.

Mr. D'AMATO. I read the Washington Post as taking a middle ground, not one which I am totally unsympathetic with. And I also read the Washington Post as saying extend but with limits. I disagree to the limits for reasons I stated before. I think it is noteworthy where they say: The Senate Democrats would do themselves and the president little good-- Let me read you the concluding paragraph where they say there should be some extension, it is interesting, and I know my colleague, Senator Thomas, wants to pose some questions: What the Senate does not need is a Democratic-led filibuster. Having already gone bail for the Clinton White House, often to an embarrassing degree-- I think it is very interesting, because I think, indeed, that is what many of my colleagues have been forced to do, to kind of walk the plank. Senate Democrats would do themselves and the president little good by tying up the Senate with a talkathon. Better that they let the probe proceed. Then it goes on to say something rather interesting, that it is a responsibility that all of us have, including this Senator and the majority. It said: Give the public some credit for knowing a witch hunt and a waste of their money if and when they see one. And that, of course, is the risk Senator D'Amato and his committee are taking. The burden is also on them.

Mr. D'AMATO. What if the Senator had a diary?

Mr. D'AMATO. Yes, the Gearan notes indicate quite a few things that we did not know. They indicated----

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, might I ask my friend and colleague to yield to me for 30 seconds without losing his right to the floor?

Mr. D'AMATO. A question was just raised. How deceptive things can be. Yes. A witness did say--and he was a lawyer, a very distinguished lawyer--``I do not know why I am here.'' That was, I guess, Mr. Jennings. Let me tell you why the committee had him appear. This is an example. We had Mr. Jennings appear because he came to Washington and had a meeting with Mrs. Clinton, and David Kendall, her lawyer, just days after the RTC-IG report criticizing the Rose Law Firm was released. And he happened to represent Seth Ward who had significant transactions. We did not just drag somebody in willy-nilly. The fact is he had total memory loss as it relates to significant questions. We have not even gone into that. I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I do not intend to be long, because I think there will be extended and long debate. As I said, we are not able to get a vote of the Rules Committee or get the Rules Committee to consider the resolution which would have authorized the expenditure of up to $600,000. By the way, in order to get some kind of relevance, I think if we were to combine both committees, the prior committee that met, the Whitewater committee that met under the chairmanship of Senator Riegle, and this committee, that we have spent something less than $1,500,000. If we want to look at the Iran-Contra with respect to money spent, I think they spent something in the order of $3,298,000, almost $3,300,000 in 1986, 1987 dollars. That would obviously be even more today. When we talk about $30 million, and it is convenient to mix it in and say, ``$30 million would buy a lot.'' That is the independent counsel. That special counsel that has taken $20-plus million, was appointed at the request of the President and the Attorney General. I think we ought to understand that they are different investigations, not mix the two. When we speak to the issue of the Pillsbury report, there have been some statements made that they said we should not go on any further. Let us understand that the Pillsbury report was very limited in nature and scope. The fact of the matter is that they were operating under a time constraint. And, indeed, they have a total agreement that tolls as of March 1. They did not and still do not even in their secondary report have all the facts and information. They have to make a determination with respect to whether a suit should go forward on the basis of cost-effectiveness. They were unable to come to a conclusion based upon all the facts. As a matter of fact, on page 164 of the report they expressly concluded, ``This conclusion does not necessarily mean that the evidence exonerates anyone.'' So let us understand that. The report was for the very limited purpose as it relates to the FDIC bringing a civil suit against Madison. And it was up against a time line. And it did not have all the facts. We have a different role, a far different role. Now, look, I have attempted to approach this today not in terms of charging partisan politics, although it is obvious to me that there has been a conscious attempt by some to say that is the only reason this committee is asking for an extension. I think that is unfair. I think it is unfortunate. I think what does take place, whether consciously or not--and I think rather consciously--is that those who make claims are attempting to poison the well as it relates to the credibility of the committee. That is unfortunate. They are attempting to paint the committee as partisan, as political. I say there was a great Governor in our State, Al Smith. He said, ``Let's look at the record.'' I heard lots of things, let's look at the record, the length of time the committee met, et cetera. We know the committee for months and months could not carry on its work. My colleagues know also that there have been many occasions, including the last several weeks, when we have not been able to go forward because of scheduling problems, and because we were looking toward a continuation and knew we could not finish our work, and because there are dozens of witnesses that are unavailable, and it would not be timely to call them. There is a sequential order that we need. And these witnesses, in many cases, first need to appear so we can take depositions. In some cases, after we take depositions, we do not bring them in to testify. I think we have to look at that. Again, I am just going to reflect on the question of hearing the facts. The former U.S. attorney--who was objected to, whose law firm participated in or did the Pillsbury, Madison, and Sutro report, did not participate in the final conclusion--did not participate in the final report, but did have a limited involvement. Today's Washington Post says, ``The retention''--I am trying to give a balanced position on this--``The retention of the Pillsbury firm in 1994 drew sharp complaints by the White House because Republican former U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens, a critic of the Clinton administration, was a member of the Pillsbury team evaluating Madison.'' It goes on to say--I think this is most instructive and important because we can all pick out some little thing and attempt to pile on, try to make something out of it and blow it out of proportion--``His work on the matter however amounted to only about 10 hours.'' So this was not a report authored by Mr. Stephens. Again, when we look at the report, its scope, its narrowness, it does not give license to us to say that the work of the committee is done. Last but not least, I have to suggest to my friends and colleagues on the other side--and I am not disputing anybody's motivation; they say enough is enough, let us terminate this--if indeed we had access to all the information; if it was forthcoming; if it was not withheld, whether by, again, design or because of human error; if we were not constrained by the independent prosecutor--and, again, I, indicate it was our intent to bring various witnesses in, we would not just surrender our rights; then we may have been in a position to wind up this investigation. The question is posed, why did not we do that? Because we ascertained from the special counsel his concerns and more importantly we ascertained the likelihood of us bringing in or attempting to bring in some of the witnesses. One in particular, Judge Hale, would have brought forth a plea or an indication that he would avail himself of his constitutional rights, and that is, to take the fifth amendment or indicate that he would take the fifth amendment. That would have cut us off and put us in a position where it would have been rather doubtful that we could get him at any time. We did not go forward. That is the reason. Again, Al Smith said, ``Let's look at the record.'' With the exception of one situation, notwithstanding that there may not have been some bargaining with respect to the scope, I heard, ``Oh, the scope of some of the subpoenas that were requested were too broad.'' Yes, indeed, when you are looking for information there is a tendency to cover the waterfront. All of those matters were narrowed down by way of counsel, majority and minority, with the exception of one occasion, and that had to do with Bill Kennedy and the famous Kennedy notes, where we had the references to the Rose Law Firm, et cetera--and even then I do not believe that the administration should have pushed us to that. It was not the committee's desire to ask for enforcement of the subpoena. It was only when they refused, refused to make those notes available. And by the way, why did they withhold them? There was no question they could have done it before. Only on that one occasion did it finally come down to the fact that we had to insist on enforcement. Then the notes were turned over. So, to attempt at this date today to say at this time that the work of the committee has been and is partisan, that our request to go forward is partisan and is political in nature, is just not the case. I understand the concern to limit the time. I am not suggesting to you-- that is why, by the way, as you say, Senator--in my presentation to the Rules Committee, I said that my desire was to terminate, to set that at the end of February, February 29, because we did not want to run it into a political season. That was my desire. It is my desire today that we terminate sooner rather than later, but only after we get the facts and conclude our work. Ours is not an investigation that should be driven by time alone. I never envisioned that we would run into the problems that we did. I do not think that my colleagues did. In good faith, there has to be some attempt to reach some comity, or are we going to just simply charge ``politics, politics'' and drag in the red herrings and talk about how many committees and the economy-- sure, people are concerned about the economy and jobs. Do you want me to begin to assert what I think could or should have been done? We should have balanced the budget. We passed a balanced budget here. It was vetoed--vetoed. If we had a balanced budget that was passed, interest rates would be coming down and the economy would be prospering. Do you want to talk about that? That was not impugned or impinged, the fact the economy is in trouble, because of the Whitewater committee. Do you want to talk about getting the economy going? Give the working middle class a tax cut. Come forward. If you want to drag in politics and rhetoric, we can do that. If we want to concentrate in terms of attempting to do the work of the committee in the way that keeps politics to a minimum, this chairman is willing to attempt to work out an accommodation. But I say in all good faith, the set time line proposed, which is April 5, will not give us the opportunity to get the witnesses we need, and will bring us right back into the same situation that Senator Mitchell, former Democratic chairman, and Senator Cohen advised us against. To set up an arbitrary time line--and I am now paraphrasing them--is to bring about a stratagem of delay. I am not suggesting, as I said before, that it would be delay just by the administration or the administration alone. Defense attorneys for various witnesses who may have something to be concerned about will look at that time line. I can guarantee you this will take place and there will be delays. All the charts in the world are not going to overcome that. All the sloganeering in the world will not overcome that. I suggest to my colleagues that we are going to have plenty of time for political charges to be made next week. Maybe this ought to be the time that we not engage in so much of that political rhetoric and begin to attempt to see in what manner we can continue the work of the committee with the best hope and opportunity to wind up sooner rather than later. If my colleagues want to take that up, I am willing to do that. I stand ready and willing to work to accomplish our goal without, again, setting a time line which is guaranteed to bring about more delay. Those sentiments are not original sentiments expressed by the Senator from New York; those are sentiments and concerns that have been expressed by Senator Cohen and by former Senate majority leader, Senator Mitchell. They said they should not have done it. They did. They set time lines with the best of intent. I suggest the situation is analogous today. Theirs was an attempt not to go further into the political season, and they said they made a mistake--made a mistake. I do not know how to work out of this dilemma. I understand the legitimate concerns of my colleagues. I really do. I say if there is a way in which we can do it, if it is an authorization, I do not know where it will take us--we can start the work as soon as the trial is completed. We can continue work. There are certain witnesses that we cannot bring in now. There is certain work we can do that we do not have to do by way of public hearings. By the way, Mr. President, let me suggest to you, simply because a committee is not holding public hearings does not mean that there has not been tens of hundreds of thousands of hours of work in terms of the examination of witnesses, in terms of sifting through evidence, in terms of various interrogatories which have been sent out and reviewed. My colleagues know that. I think it is rather disingenuous to come up and simply say, ``Well, you didn't have hearings on X, Y, Z days.'' We can get out the records and we can talk about how many attorneys asked for delays, how many people had legitimate excuses, how many people put forth that there were medical reasons they could not be here, how many could not be here on a particular day because their counsel was too busy. We have attempted to accommodate people on both sides. The fact we may not have had a hearing on a particular day does not go to the essence of the work of the committee. Let me say again, last, but not least, as it relates to the fact that there may or may not have been hearings held by other committees with respect to their relevant duties and obligations, whatever they may be--Medicare, Medicaid, health care--and let me take this opportunity to say that I intend to support the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill which will deal with health care which is scheduled to come to the floor. I think that is a good bill and is going to go a long way toward helping. The work of the Whitewater committee has not precluded these other committees or the Senate from undertaking its work. The fact that there may have only been 20-some-odd votes this year as compared to 90-some last year at the same time, again, is not something the Whitewater work has impeded. These are arguments that are put forth and which are fraught with, I think, specious undertones, a kind of red herring to divert attention. ``Thirty million dollars has been spent on this matter.'' Look, we spent less than $1.5 million, and that is both committees. I do not think we have to spend $600,000. Why do we ask for it? Because, if at the end we have, let us say, 3 weeks or 4 weeks of work to do and we run out of money, we do not want to be in a situation where we have to again come back to the floor of the Senate. I think we can complete it for less, but the fact of the matter is, you learn by experience. But certainly to say that this is one of the most costly investigations, that is just not the case. As I said, the Iran-Contra ran almost $3,300,000. Their work was compressed in a shorter time. How is that? We have examined more witnesses, taken more depositions. So I think in terms of management of the taxpayers' funds, we have been frugal. I am prepared at another point to go into the kinds of things we have developed: The fact that there have been people who have pled guilty, the fact that there are indictments pending, the fact that there is substance, not just smoke, to many of the things that people are concerned about. But, again, lest we be unfair, this chairman and this committee has an obligation to get the facts, and if those facts exonerate, clear away the webs of suspicion, why, then, that would be the pronouncement of the committee. I want the chips to fall where they may. If there are practices that should not have been undertaken but that were which may not fall into a criminal area, or if there may be matters that may be of a criminal nature, then that will be the undertaking of the special counsel to decide what, if anything, may be appropriate. But we should not be afraid of going forward. Democracy is not always nice and tidy, and sometimes it does invite some things that are not pleasant. They are not pleasant for either side. So sometimes we have to do the business of ascertaining what are the facts. It is not all fun, but it is necessary and sometimes it is even somewhat hurtful. I think we have to attempt to not look to deliberately hurt people but to do our job to get the facts. That is what I hope we will be able to do. Mr. President, I said I am not going to continue and go into what the committee has found and some of the open questions, because I believe that we will be here next week unless we can get a resolution of this. My colleagues on the other side have indicated that they are going to ask for extended debate, and I think there certainly should be extended debate. But debate that reaches more than just that and denies us an opportunity to vote, I think that would be unfortunate. Again, everyone has a right to play out their role in this matter. I yield the floor. Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. I will make a very short statement.

Mr. D'AMATO. Our colleague has the floor, and it has been over 1 hour since the other side had their right.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, personal privilege. I do not think the minority leader--may I make a point of order? When we address Members and begin to address Members by their names, when we begin to bring this business of calling them ``D'Amato hearings,'' I think that the minority leader is out of line. I make that point. Now, if the minority leader wants to attempt to get into personalization, then take it off the floor. Then you might be absolutely within your rights as a citizen, but not on the Senate floor.

Mr. D'AMATO. May I inquire of the clerk if they have kept time?

Mr. D'AMATO. I just wanted to ascertain if it was for a question or for the purpose of yielding the floor. It is proper to yield for a question. I have now watched this discussion and observed this for a period of time, but I do believe there is a manner by which Members can seek the floor. It should not be by way of any Member yielding to a Member unless it is a unanimous-consent request and reserving time. Certainly, the posing of a question is proper, and if it is yielding for a question, I understand and will not object. I ask my colleagues, in the interest of comity, because the Senator from New York would have engaged in the same situation and I understand people want to make their points, but there are others who would like to make their points. I hope that if you yield it would be for a question and we can work out some way in which my colleagues can make their points without having to impinge on the rules.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, is that for a question?

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. It was indicated they were in a box, a file. He thought he maybe turned them over to his lawyer.

Mr. D'AMATO. He is Mr. Ickes, deputy chief at the White House, and in charge of this task force dealing with this Whitewater and Whitewater- related matters. Let me say that the production of those documents alone have raised very interesting questions, and I have to think that there are many more documents--because the produced records contain information relating to Mr. Ickes tasking assignments out to different people. You know something, we have not gotten any of those documents or any of the task reports from the other members of that so-called White House defense team. But that is only one individual. With Mark Gearan several weeks ago, former White House communications director, the same kind of event. He claims that the documents were not found because he put them in a box while he was packing. He was going to head the Peace Corps, and he thought mistakenly that they had been turned over. An inadvertence. Interesting. Because he is another member of the defense team. Guess what? Again, just several weeks ago, the same thing. This time Mr. Waldman, another member of the defense team, finds documents. Again, it relates to specifically Whitewater-related matters. No question. I have to tell you, it does lead one to believe--even if one were to accept that these were just accidental--these are delays that are no fault of the committee. What about the manner in which the White House conducted an investigation to get the documents? Let me give you an example of what the Treasury Department did. They sent a team of IRS agents in to comb the files for relevant material. It is not what the White House did. They had a haphazard handling of this, almost with the back-of-the-hand attitude, designed--or certainly if not designed, they should have recognized that it certainly did not comply with the spirit and intent of what the President meant by promising full cooperation. Last but not least is the miraculous production of the billing records--billing records that are very essential to analyze what Mrs. Clinton did or did not do for Madison. Where are they found? In the personal residence of the White House. I do not know how it got there. But I have to tell you, as our friend from North Carolina, Senator Lauch Faircloth, points out, that is one of the most secure places in the world. He asked, tongue in cheek, ``Did the butler bring it there?'' Who do you think had control of the billing records of the Rose Law Firm? Who? It was not this Senator. I do not know. Where do you think they found them? They were found in the personal library of the First Family. Who brought them there? How did they get there? Our colleagues complain that we are bringing in witnesses unnecessarily. An attorney, Austin Jennings, was brought in. Let me tell you why we asked for that poor attorney to come in. It was because he came up to Washington to meet with the Clintons' personal defense lawyer. Are we supposed to talk to him by telephone? Why did the Clinton's attorney not do that? He was writing a book--this is a great story--and he wanted to ascertain, was Mrs. Clinton a competent lawyer. Could you believe he flew from Little Rock up here to the White House itself to meet with the Clintons' personal lawyer and Mrs. Clinton to spend 20 minutes simply to say that, yes, if asked any questions, he would say she was a competent lawyer? He did not even know who paid for his trip. You want to talk about disingenuous. I think it is disingenuous to ask why we asked this poor gentlemen to come here. Incredible. Sympathy and sop? Come on. Let us level somewhat. I have to tell you something. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Jennings was Seth Ward's attorney. Who is Seth Ward? If my friends want to debate this, we will bring out what the committee has been doing on this floor. If you want to do it for 10 hours, we will do it for 10 hours. If you want to do it for 20 hours, we will do it for 20 hours, and we will spell it out. Seth Ward is Webb Hubbell's father-in-law, and he participated in Castle Grande, the biggest of Madison Guaranty's sham deals--a $3.8 million loss. By the way, Mrs. Clinton, when asked by various investigative agencies of the Government, gave indications that she did not know about Castle Grande. She heard it referred to by a different name. She had 15 conversations with Seth Ward. Jennings was Seth Ward's attorney. That is why we brought him in. When an attorney says tongue in cheek, like Mr. Jennings did--a smart fellow--says, ``I do not know what I am doing here,'' come on, it is disingenuous to come to the American people and to the Senate and to say some witnesses did not even know why. Here is a smart lawyer, and he does not even know who paid for him to come up here. I have to tell you, it raises many more questions than it answers. It is this kind of delay and holding back that puts us here in this position. You can pull out the letter and all of the conversations you want. I thought we would have this matter finished by February 29. If we had the cooperation of witnesses, the White House, and others, we could have wound this up. But we did not have the kind of cooperation that the American people are entitled to.