Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. That is a very valid point and question. Also, again, when one looks at the contention that we have looked for an indefinite, ad infinitum extension, that fails to take into account that we have asked for a finite amount of money, up to $600,000. But if we get into the situation where we cannot get certain witnesses, because their lawyers seek--as has been spelled out in a book called ``Men of Zeal,'' where they talk about what happens if you fix a date for the end of an investigation or the work of the committee. Exactly what we are confronting today is what our colleague, Senator Mitchell, the former Democratic leader, and Senator Cohen warned us about: there will be lawyers who use the deadline as a target time, and delay their clients from coming forward; and there will be bureaucratic stalling. It is stated quite explicitly in here. This is the result of hard deadlines. He says: ``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 extraordinarily slow pace.'' My gosh, if that is not exactly what is taking place. We have experienced that. If we want to guarantee that stratagem will continue, just put on a date certain and we will see that take place. Last, it says, ``perhaps more important, 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.'' We have key witnesses that we want to appear. And I joined with Senator Sarbanes in trying to bring a key witness, Judge David Hale, before the committee. Indeed, the Senator quotes a letter of October 2--but he does not read all of it--in which we said to the special prosecutor, who objected to us calling Mr. Hale in, ``having determined that the Senate must now move forward the special committee,'' we were going to bring various witnesses in. ``We will, of course, continue to make every effort to coordinate where practicable activities with those of your investigation.'' We say ``we stand ready to take into account consistent with the objectives set forth your views with regard to the timing of such private depositions and public testimony of particular witnesses.'' You have to read the whole letter to understand it and you have to understand that there were briefings subsequent to this letter in which counsel for the minority and the majority were advised as to the problems related to bringing Mr. Hale in. If somebody wants to impugn the motives of the committee for not bringing him in, I say why would I not want to? I did not want, first, to have a situation where we jeopardized the trial that would be taking place, which is starting this coming week; and second, to have lost the opportunity, probably for all times, to get the cooperation of Mr. Hale. I know that there are some in this body who may not really want Mr. Hale to come in and testify, because, indeed, if he testifies, as there have been indications, that he was asked--or even more, told--to make a $300,000 loan to Susan McDougal by the then Governor, it would seem to me that there are some who would not be very anxious for that to be uttered publicly, in view of the American people. I suggest that if that is anything, it is an indication of the Senator's good will in not attempting--and lack of political motivation--in not attempting to pull them in here and say the devil may care, we do not care about that trial, I want somebody to come in here and make accusations against the President and the First Lady. I did not go in that direction. I think I chose to act in a responsible manner in accordance with the request of the special counsel. Yes, I wanted Mr. Hale to come in, but indeed the special counsel was able to make a convincing argument, and I think we did the right thing. What would they have said, what would this body have said if I asked to immunize David Hale? They would have risen up, by the Democratic leadership, calling me and accusing me of all kinds of things, and would have said, ``What are you doing? You want to immunize a crook and a thief to have him make accusations?'' Think about it. Come on. Let me ask the question. What are you hiding? What are you afraid of? Why do you not want the facts to come out? The New York Times says that, and this is what most responsible newspaper editorials are saying. When you suggest that we are asking for an unlimited period of time, that is not what we say. We couch it in terms of no more than or up to $600,000. But if we spell out, I say to my friend, a specific time certain, by gosh, everything that has taken place in terms of the procrastination, in terms of the documents that find their way--oh, I just found it in this book. Can you imagine, trained lawyers who are in charge of defending the White House giving us this drivel--drivel--that they were not aware that the documents were not turned over, documents setting out, tasking other members of the White House at the highest levels, what to do as it related to Whitewater. This was the very man charged with the responsibility of mastering and bringing the very forces together--Mr. Ickes, Deputy Chief of Staff of the White House. I could just imagine if my friends and colleagues were in the majority and that was the Bush administration, and that was the manner in which their Chief of Staff was responding--Deputy Chief of Staff--on a particular matter. We are not talking about one instance or two instances. This is repeat; a pattern. Want to talk about delay? We, unfortunately, were delayed for weeks and weeks because we had to battle over documents being produced and we had to vote subpoenas and come to the floor of the Senate. Who occasioned that political debacle? Who is it that created that political firestorm? We are always tested. Weeks and weeks and months and months of negotiations behind the scene. My friend brings out and says these subpoenas are so far reaching. He knows that those were, indeed, the preliminary negotiations as it related to scope and breadth. In only one case did we not agree upon the breadth and scope of the subpoenas. We agreed on every other one of them. It is disingenuous to come out and say officially they requested a far-reaching subpoena. That happens and is part of the process in negotiating. We did negotiate. The one exception was the case where we had to come to this body and vote the enforcement of a subpoena and then, miraculously, we get the documents on a Friday afternoon. It's always on a Friday, by the way, most of these documents appear Friday afternoons; they get the least press. Want to talk about politics? Talk about politics in the White House answers. When we ask for documents, let me tell you what the White House, Mr. Fabiani of the White House says, ``Tell Senator D'Amato and one of his fat cats to pay for the production of them.'' Is that the kind of response that the Senate and the committee is entitled to when we ask for electronic e-mail? ``Tell the Senator and his fat cats to pay for it.'' Want to talk about crude political assassination? How about the team that they had over there, Mr. Waldman, who was assigned a task to get information, to get dirt, on Senator D'Amato, on White House time, and then send it over to the Democratic Committee. Is that what we are involved in? Want to talk about a low down kind of thing--that is fact. That is fact. Now, look, I never intended nor did I wish for this hearing, these investigations, to go into the political season. Had we had cooperation and had we been able to get some of the witnesses in, we would not have to be asking for that. Had we not been precluded from some of the witnesses we could have even made our request such that we will examine only these witnesses that we have not had access to. I did not delay the production of these documents. The committee was not responsible for the miraculous production of the billing records that showed up in the White House. The fact of the matter is that we have encountered a far different situation than has been promised to us. The President promises cooperation. Those who carry out the President's wishes have stalled, have delayed, have been engaged in dilatory tactics. I will at a certain point in time elucidate on those and touch on those with definiteness. If, indeed, they think that by the political attacks upon the committee or upon the chairman that they are going to dissuade us from doing our job, and that is to get the facts, they are wrong. I suggest that we call a truce, call a truce to the politicization of this, and say we will agree to get the facts and work together. We have demonstrated we can do that. I have no doubt that some of my colleagues are placed in a very awkward position. I do not think they like what they are doing and saying--some of the things that they say. I think they are almost forced to do it. I think they are compelled to do it by an administration that seems to be totally bent on keeping the facts from coming to the people, an administration that says, ``We don't care.'' Why do you not care what the public thinks? Why are they not entitled to the truth? What is it that lurks behind that stone wall that has been constructed? We have not had cooperation.

Mr. D'AMATO. The Senator is absolutely correct. Of course, you see that you could ask. If you were to say, ``Where were you, Senator, on last week on Tuesday,'' I could not tell you now. I would have to look. But when you have key events, monumental, the death of a trusted friend, someone you have known for a long time, someone who you have worked with, and you get some of the testimony surrounding that event, surrounding the search for something that was important, the possible suicide note, to have the kind of statements ``I do not recall.'' ``I do not know.'' ``Who did you speak to?" ``I do not know.'' ``Did you speak to anybody?" ``I do not know. I do not remember. It would have been any" --it is just inconceivable. It smells of a well-orchestrated plot to deny the committee the facts and the information. And it is not just once; it is repeated. Then when we find--and, again, very troubling--documents that relate to the work of the First Lady, documents that relate to her representation, or at least the fact that there were numerous phone calls to Seth Ward, Seth Ward, a man who purchased the property known as Casa Grande, Seth Ward, Webb Hubbell's father-in-law, Associate Attorney General, his son-in-law is in that law firm. It is interesting the son-in-law did not represent or make the phone calls with respect to his father-in-law who he was close to, a transaction that can be described as nothing less than a sham, that attempted to provide Seth Ward, in the final analysis, with over $335,000, and finally had to agree to give back to the RTC. One has to say, was it that representation, or those phone calls which we were never aware of until we found the billing records? And where were the billing records of phone calls between Mrs. Clinton and Seth Ward? In the personal residence of the President and the First Lady, in their personal residence. How about that? Are we to believe some construction worker picked them up someplace? Where did they pick them up, and where did they get to where they got, the President's personal residence, in August, just when the RTC was again releasing a report dealing with these events? So it is very troubling. It is very troubling and it raises questions. Maggie Williams, you see, was seen, at least by the testimony of Officer O'Neill, a career Secret Service officer, who would have no reason to concoct a story, says that on the night of Vincent Foster's death he saw Maggie Williams coming out of Vincent Foster's office--and she admits she was there--and that she was carrying papers, files. And he remembers with great detail, that when she, Maggie Williams, who is Mrs. Clinton's chief of staff, attempted to gain access to her office, she could not do it; she had to balance the files with one hand and then with the other hand open her door. You see, this is an experience I think probably many of us have had when you are carrying something and then you have to shift it. And he said she propped it up against the wall or a cabinet so that she could then use her other hand to open the door. That was a specificity that made it hard for this Senator to not totally believe Officer O'Neill. Let me tell you, the saga continues, the saga of the memory lapses, because Maggie Williams denies that this occurred. But then there is another White House staffer, a young man who works there as an assistant by the name of Tom Castleton. He still works there. This is not someone who is in discord with the administration. This is not a partisan--if anything, he may be a partisan supporter of the White House. And there is nothing wrong with that. But he has no reason to lie. What does he testify? He testifies that when Maggie Williams is carrying a box of documents up to the personal residence of the White House, she says, ``Mrs. Clinton wants to review these papers.'' When we asked Maggie Williams, she didn't say that; she has no memory of that. Why would she say that? She would never tell this young man that for no reason. After all, of course, he told us the truth. He had no reason to make this up. Let me ask something else. It has always mystified me why it is people have to invent incredible stories. Would it not be ordinary, if papers that belonged to you, that were with a trusted friend and a legal advisor, that you would look them over as opposed to simply having them turned over to another attorney without looking? I find that very difficult, very difficult to understand. It would seem to me that if the Senator had important papers entrusted to his legal advisor and counselor and something has suddenly gone wrong and those papers were packaged and sent to your residence so you could then send them over to your personal lawyer, would you not look through them? Would it not be natural? Would it not be correct? Would it not be right? But you see what happens when people invent stories; they are stuck to them. They are stuck to them. Once the White House issued the statement, a definitive statement, that the First Lady had, never looked at those papers, they could never explain how the papers that were sent up there found their way back down, and then, if all of those papers were sent over to Mr. Kendall, the lawyer for the Clintons, if all of them were sent over, then how could it be that the billing records were found in the personal residence, if you had already said for the public record, public consumption, that you never looked at the records? So now we have the mystery of the appearing documents. Where are they found? In the personal residence, where all the papers had been brought initially, all of them, and, I would suggest to you, probably including the billing records. And that, indeed, when we have heard this troubling story--because I tell you it would be absolutely totally reasonable for anybody, President or anyone--to look through their personal files and their personal records. I think that it would be unusual, unusual, absolutely unusual--after all, they had nothing to fear. There was no wrongdoing. Why would you not look through the papers to ascertain if these were papers, indeed, that should be then sent over to a new lawyer. Would you not want to look at them? So the answers that are forthcoming do not in many cases lead to a conclusion. They raise other questions. But let me say our mandate is to get the facts. It is not to rush to judgment. It is only because-- and I have only shared this for the first time--of some of the questions that I consider important, some of the troubling aspects, that I raise this. I have not raised this heretofore. I have not shared this with the media. I have not rushed to judgment, nor do I. But I raise this question--and there are others--in light of testimony given by witnesses who have nothing to gain, who, if anything, are supporters of the administration. Neuwirth, assistant counsel to the chief counsel of the United States, he says they are concerned about unfettered access, that Mrs. Clinton was concerned. This young man, Tom Castleton, who says Maggie Williams, Mrs. Clinton's chief of staff, says that Mrs. Clinton wants to review these documents. Then the White House states that they did not look at these documents. Then the billing records appearing. How did they get there? So there is more work to be done. I do this--and I was not happy about having to raise these questions at this point in time--only because, again, the assertions have been made that our investigation has not revealed anything, that this is a waste of time and a waste of taxpayers' money. Let me conclude by saying I believe that the committee has been patient, in some cases overly so; that the committee has gone out of its way to give the benefit of the doubt, as we should and will continue to do, to witnesses and in certain instances when evidence has not come forth when it should. We will say, let us conclude our job, get the facts, and that is when we will end the investigation, sooner rather than later. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. It would be impossible to give a date exactly, because the Senator is right: We have to go through the information and bring in people. It may develop--and does in many cases--additional leads and additional people. I have to tell you. I do not believe that we have received nearly all of the pertinent information that we have requested, or subpoenaed, or that has been subpoenaed by the special counsel. I just do not believe that to be the case. I think it is impossible to believe that other members of that White House defense team, that strategy team that met during the early week of January--they met under extraordinary circumstances, they met repeatedly, they met every day for a 1-week period of time, and thereafter--that there is not more information that was available that has not been turned over to this committee. If we set a time, I have to tell you something, I do not think we will ever get it. If we do not wait to see what takes place in terms of that trial and what witnesses we may or may not have, we are never going to get all the facts. I never knew that a committee ran just simply on the basis of a time line. I thought that our obligation was to get the facts. I thought that was what determined. And if we were doing a credible job, if we were getting the facts, that we would continue until the picture was completed, until the job was completed, if it took additional resources. That is why we are here. We are here for those resources. Let me say that we did not say ``give us such funds as may be necessary.'' So you see when we say there is not a definitive date, that is true. But we have asked to limit it to an amount of money. That amount of money will only enable us to go approximately 3, maybe 4 months if there is no real activity, and if we have to suspend during a period of time, maybe somewhat longer. Indeed, if there is no justification--and I suggest it has been the action of the White House and their people in terms of holding back documents, that has brought us to this point where we suspect, and I think we have reason to suspect, that they are still withholding key documents and information from the Senate.

Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly.

Mr. D'AMATO. I have to say to my colleague and friend from Alaska, politely, I can not understand what my Democratic colleagues hope to accomplish by extended, protracted debate--which is a filibuster. That is a nice way of talking about filibustering this. It will only conjure in the minds of people the question: What are you hiding and why are you doing this? I think the Washington Post, although it did not say, today, that we should go on endlessly--nor do I believe we should--they said, today, that ``The Senate Democrats have already gone bail.'' That is pretty tough language. Listen to this. ``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.''

Mr. D'AMATO. They indicated an attitude of the Deputy Chief of Staff and others, but certainly the Deputy Chief of Staff, that they were concerned, very concerned. And they characterized in very descriptive language what professionals, civil servants at the Justice Department, were doing. And they did not like it. They did not say they are doing a professional job. They said, in essence, they are working us over. He is a bad guy. That is what we find in the Gearan notes. We find a whole series of meetings that we were not aware of. No one came in and told us that we met on this day and the next day and we met in the morning and we met in the afternoon. Oh, no. We learned thereafter that various tasks are given out. And I have reason to believe, as it relates to the question that was asked, I say to the Senator, by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Senator Lott, that, indeed, there very well may be--and I would suspect there are-- substantial documents that have not been turned over to this committee or that may have been discarded deliberately, particularly by that team, that so-called Whitewater team. I cannot believe that we have only received documents from a handful of them. Where is it? Where are they? What happened to those tasks? What did they do? What were their responses to the tasks, very carefully enumerated? We will go through that. Last, but not least, I think it is rather interesting that the First Lady turns up at, I believe, the first meeting--I may be wrong--the first meeting. And according to Mr. Gearan's notes: Oh, this looks like a meeting I would like to attend or that I would be interested in. No, let us not let it be said that these were just casual, indifferent, that these were notes that had no meaning. They reflected a pattern of concern, of fear, of absolutely disdain, in some cases, for the work that professionals at the Justice Department were undertaking. So, to your question, Senator Domenici, they were very revealing and revealed facts that we were not aware of, facts that we are still pursuing.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, and I will yield to my friend, Senator Thomas, for some questions that he might want to pose, but before I yield to him for the purpose of questions, let me say, we can all quote editorials. My friend and colleague gave a viewpoint of a distinguished newspaper, but let me say, if one were to look at the major newspapers of this country, very clearly--and I am not talking about now the opinions expressed by various pundit s, but rather the editorial pages--you will find overwhelmingly, 5 to 1 or more, a clear pattern. Those in the media who have been following this, like the American people who have been following it have been supportive of our efforts. And I'd like to add the manner under which we are compelled to operate does not make our work quick or easy. That is, bringing in witnesses, deposing them. You cannot schedule 1 day after the other. You have to bring in witnesses and examine them. Thousands of hours go into these hearings, not just the hearings that are heard publicly, but in preparation for them. Otherwise, we would have had many, many witnesses who came in and, rightfully, the minority and, more important, the American people would have said, ``Why are you bringing these people here? They have no relevance.'' We have examined well over 100 witnesses--well over--and we will go into that. This month alone, we have examined dozens of witnesses not in a public forum. Many of them we will not call, because we have found that they do not add to the investigation. So it is not accurate to suggest that the committee has not been diligent, notwithstanding that there may have been a period of time when we have not had many public hearings. Again, as it relates to the various editorials, I will speak to some of them, but I will tell you that when you find most of the Gannett chain, when you find the Los Angeles Times, when you find the New York Times, when you find the Washington Post and others, for the most part, supporting very clearly that the work of the committee continue, I think it underscores the need for us to find the facts.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, in light of the objection, I make the same request for the legislation to be the pending business on Friday, March 1, at 10:30 a.m., under the same restraints as the previous consent agreement.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to a resolution extending the Special Committee To Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation. I ask for its consideration under the following agreement: 2 hours to be equally divided in the usual form, and that no amendments be in order, other than one amendment to be offered by Senator Daschle, or his designee, limited to 1 hour equally divided. Further, I ask that following the debate on the amendment and resolution, the Senate proceed to vote on the amendment, and immediately following that vote, that the resolution be advanced to third reading and passage to occur immediately without further action or debate.

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

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. No. I would like to complete my statement. I certainly will yield for questions. And I assure my colleague he will have an opportunity to make whatever observations he wishes. I cannot accept my colleagues offer simply because we would not even begin to have access to key documents and key witnesses until after that trial. We may never get them and if we do not get them, then we will have to wind up, and we will. It is the hope of this Senator, without setting a specific time limit, that we can conclude the business of this committee within 6 to 8 weeks after the conclusion of that trial--I say conclude the business of this committee in a way that makes sense--quickly and expeditiously, but only after we have either gathered all of the facts or made every reasonable and possible effort to have those facts. Let me tell you the problem in agreeing to a time limit. It is spelled out in a book called, ``Men Of Zeal.'' This book was coauthored by two of our distinguished colleagues, two of our most distinguished colleagues, both of them from Maine, the former Democratic majority leader, Senator George Mitchell, and our own colleague, Senator Bill Cohen. In ``Men Of Zeal'' they talk about ``a candid inside story of the Iran-Contra hearings.'' I turn to one of the observations that was made, as it fits the situation and the dilemma that we have here now, a bona fide dilemma. Some can say, ``Senator D'Amato, you are a proponent of Senator Dole. You are on his campaign team. Therefore, you have a reason and the occasion, to make this go longer.'' That is not true. I do support Senator Dole. By the way, it is a constitutional right of every citizen to support whomever he chooses. And I hope, when we go in to do the business of the committee--we understand that we have different political philosophies, that we can support different candidates. I respect that right of all of my colleagues. But to simply say that because you are campaigning on behalf of one candidate, then, you cannot discharge your duties, I think is rather illogical. We would wipe out everybody. All of my friends on the Democratic side, I think with very few exceptions--I can think of only one, whose remarks may not have been interpreted as fully supportive of the President of the United States-- are fully supportive of the President and the leader of their party. Does that mean they should all, therefore, be disqualified? That they cannot make rational judgments? Or that all of their judgments will be made just simply on a partisan basis? I hope that is not the case. I do not think that it is right to then apply that logic to a Member or Members of the Republican side, to say you cannot make judgments because you support this candidate, you are in a key position, and therefore you are not going to be able to be impartial and fair. I have attempted to discharge my duties in a fair and even-handed way. I have attempted to do that. I am not going to tell you that I have not made mistakes. But certainly I hope that the minority will acknowledge that we have attempted to run this committee in a fair manner; wherever possible, and in 90 percent of the cases, subpoenas that have been issued in a bipartisan manner; in terms of working out problems--even when we have had some of the most rancorous disagreements, we have eventually been able to settle them. I am not going to be able to, nor will I attempt to, say who has been right and who has been wrong. Sometimes we may have asked for information in an overreaching way. And my colleagues rightfully have said, ``Wait a second.'' And we have attempted to accommodate their concerns. There was only one instance when we came to the floor of this Senate, where we could not reach an agreement, and even in that case eventually we did. And the information that we sought-- let me go right to the heart of it, the notes of one of the White House employees, Mr. Kennedy--was found to be appropriate. I ask anybody if they thought we got information we were not entitled to? Of course we were entitled to that information. You cannot on one hand say we are being cooperative, we will not raise the privilege issue, executive privilege, and then on the other withhold. So we even in this case; but again the important thing is that we came to a definitive termination that avoided a test in the courts. Those famous notes revealed a series of meetings. They revealed the question of the Rose Law Firm and, of course, even now is open to interpretation as to a question of what they mean by a ``vacuum'' in the Rose files. Reasonable people might disagree on that. I would find it hard to give one interpretation. But that is honest disagreement. One of the reasons that our colleagues find that we are in this position today is because we did not think--nor did I believe--that there would be these delays. It was my hope that we would wind these hearings up before we got into this session. It was always my hope. When I say session I am talking about and I should say season; the political season that is upon us but still has not come upon us as it relates to the general election. And again, I hope that we can bring these hearings and get the facts sooner rather than later. I am not looking to run this thing. I say that to my friend and colleague, Senator Daschle, and other colleagues. But here is the problem that I have and I think we legitimately have. And it is not something that is new. It is not novel. It did not just become visited upon us. And our colleagues in their book, again, ``Men of Zeal,'' by Senator Cohen and former majority leader, Democratic majority leader, Senator Mitchell, said finding the committee's deadline--talking about the Iran-Contra, and the deadline that they had fixed to the committee to finish its work--``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 extraordinarily slow pace.'' This was their observation about what took place during these hearings less than 10 years ago; during their problems. Listen to that. ``Bureaucrats in some agencies appeared to be attempting to thwart the investigative process by delivering documents at an extraordinarily slow pace.'' I mean as much as things change they never change, when you set a deadline on these kinds of things, as our colleagues are calling for. ``But, perhaps most importantly, 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.'' I have to tell you that we have been experiencing that. That is not because of the ill will of my Democratic colleagues. I do not say that is a cabal that has been hatched by the Democratic Party, or their stratagem. I just say if you are an attorney representing your client and you are going to do what you can to protect the client--and it may be that you are going to assert various privileges--It may be that you are going to do whatever you can to get past a particular time or deadline. That is a fact. Let me go to one of the conclusions again, and it is important to know that these men--colleagues of ours, distinguished colleagues of ours, the former Democratic leader writing this to share with us their insight, candid inside story, of not only the events that transpired, in the attempt to leave us a blueprint for what we should or should not do and some of the problems attendant--in their conclusions they say, ``Setting fixed deadlines for the completion of congressional investigations should be avoided.'' This is not Senator D'Amato. They go on to say, ``Such decisions are often dictated by political circumstances and the need to avoid the appearance of partisanship.'' I suggest to you that is one of the reasons we originally set a time limit because we wanted to avoid that. It is exactly on point, and it is the intent of this Senator--and it is still the intent of this Senator--to keep this out of the partisanship. The Banking Committee, which essentially serves as the mainstay of this Whitewater committee, has acted in a bipartisan manner, I have to tell you, in 90 percent of our undertakings. I ask my colleagues to think about that. It is not the intent of the chairman of that committee to bring us into a situation that is not going to reflect well upon Republicans or Democrats--the work of the committee, both the Banking Committee and now as a Whitewater committee. It is not my intent. Indeed, it was with that intent in mind that we worked out a date for attempting to finish--listen to the words which are prophetic. I wish my colleagues, when we were attempting to affix a time limit to this that would have been cognizant of this warning because that is what it is. ``Setting fixed deadlines for investigations should be avoided.'' And it goes on to say again with great clarity, ``But such decisions are often dictated by political circumstances, and the need to avoid the appearance of partisanship.'' That is how it is that we came to this situation. ``In this case, a compromise was struck between those who believed an adequate investigation could be completed within 2 or 3 months and those who believed no time limitation was necessary.'' It goes on to conclude that, ``We hope that in future cases such an artificial restraint on this pursuit of facts will not be necessary.'' That is what we have. We have an artificial restraint in the pursuit of facts, not occasioned by meanspiritedness, not occasioned by benevolence, no one fixed this date. As a matter of fact, we chose this date to attempt to avoid this debate. Look. The Rules Committee did not have a quorum. Otherwise, we could have brought this amendment to the floor without asking for unanimous consent. I hope that next week at some point--I think Tuesday--the Rules Committee is scheduled again to take this matter up so that we can come to the floor without asking unanimous consent. At that point, my colleagues will have every right to raise their objections to have extended debate; indeed to undertake that which we have commonly known--and they are determined not to have a vote--as a filibuster. I think that would be wrong. But that is their right. I still hold out the hope that somehow, some way, men and women of good will can work out a way in which the committee can proceed to do its work without the need for us tying up the floor for days creating a political event, one that is highly charged, one that I suggest does not benefit either Republican or Democrat, one which I would just as soon avoid. I say that with all sincerity. I think I have some credibility with my colleagues that if I give a commitment, I keep the commitment. I want to work out this dilemma. I thank my colleagues for being patient so I could give a speech that is not all written down with dates and times and who held back what and why and when. We are here at this point. I say let us say that everybody had engaged in this with their best effort--the White House witnesses, the people that have been called forth. We still do not have the facts. Let us not ascribe it to ill will. We have a duty to gather the facts. Let us see if we cannot do it in a way that makes sense, that fulfills the obligations of the committee without the rancor, and without the partisanship. Let me say this to you. This is not one-sided. I do not say here that my colleagues on the Democratic side have been the only ones to make unwarranted attacks. There have been plenty of attacks on both sides. There has been plenty of conjecture --plenty of it. I think it is about time though, that at least we control our own actions; we cannot control everybody out there in the universe. We cannot even control some of those who support us on either the Democratic or the Republican side. But at least we can control how we conduct ourselves, and how we move forward with what statements we make. I could fight it out just as tough as anybody else. I do not think I am known as a shrinking violet. I have to tell you I think there is a point when we should attempt to come together--we have between now and next Tuesday--to see if we cannot work out some reasonable way to avoid some of the pitfalls that have been outlined in ``Men of Zeal'' and those pitfalls that we have already experienced. Again, if we set an arbitrary time limit, it invites the kind of thing that our colleagues, Senator Cohen, and former Democratic leader, Senator Mitchell, experienced. It will inevitably take place. We have seen some of that already. Again, I do not say it will be through any malicious actions of one party or the other. Again, if you are an attorney attempting to defend your client, you are going to avail yourself of everything possible. You are not going to be concerned about the committee and its duty. I would suggest, by the way--and I just leave you with this last thought--if we do not set a time line it will provide occasion to those who may be attempting to hold back to get past that date, to be more forthcoming because they are going to know that these matters, whatever they are, whatever the testimony, whatever the documents are going to come out. Better to let the chips fall where they may now as opposed to later. I suggest to you that we will probably have a good chance of winding this up sooner rather than later. Can I give assurance, and I am willing to give assurance as to some specific time that we will cut it off? If the facts lead us to move forward, or if we have the occasion to move forward, then I think we will have to do that. Maybe we can agree to a situation whereby after the trial--and I am putting this forth; I am thinking out loud; I suggest this to the Democratic leader--after the trial, and after a certain period of time, that the leaders will confer again and we may have to come back to the investigation. You may at that time say it is unreasonable or we are going to a filibuster or we are not going to do it. But let us attempt to work our way out of this together as opposed to us insisting and my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle taking their position of raising their rights and going to a filibuster. Let us see if we cannot find a solution to this problem that will permit the committee to do its work in the proper way, and to find the facts. I thank my colleagues and my friends for affording me this opportunity. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let us be clear. All of my colleagues have a right, Democrat or Republican, to utilize all the rules of the Senate as it relates to sustaining their position. I certainly do not have a quarrel with that. But I am concerned as it relates to what the underlying objective is. The underlying objective is to prevent the committee from doing its work, from being the factfinders. That is our job. That is a clearly different job from that of the independent counsel or special prosecutor, clearly different. The independent counsel's job is to ascertain whether there was criminal conduct. He uses a grand jury, secret proceedings. We are not entitled to know, nor do we know what facts are uncovered. That is a big difference. People have very particular roles, interests, and needs. Witnesses are protected. They are given absolute constitutional guarantees. That is as it should be. Most of the discovery of the information and facts is done in camera, secretly. That is a far different role than that of congressional investigatory committees. Let us understand that. There are those who say, ``Why, when you have a special counsel, do you have this committee?'' It is because it is our duty to ascertain what, if anything, the White House or the administration may have done to impede an investigation, which may or may not have criminal implications. It very well may not. But it is our duty to gather those facts. It is our duty to gather the facts as they relate to what, if anything, took place, whether proper or improper. The facts may not have criminal implications as they relate to the events that transpired in Little Rock, AR. The two investigations are distinct. They are different. Indeed, this is not the first time in the history of this country that we have had investigations by congressional committees and, at the same time, by an independent counsel, a special prosecutor. Indeed, we have taken precautions so as not to impede upon the work and make it more difficult for the independent counsel to conduct its work. And it is fair to say that much of the delay as it relates to the committee's work has not been created by partisan politics, by Democrats, by the White House, or others acting in their interests. Let us be fair about that. A good deal of the delay has been occasioned, both for the previous committee that undertook this mission and by this committee, due to our legitimate concerns about the work of the special counsel. Indeed, we have agreed in the resolution that we would not grant immunity where the independent counsel objected. Indeed, we have, painstakingly, gone out of our way, notwithstanding our own constitutional responsibilities, not to willy-nilly insist that we get our way as it relates to subpoenaing of records, documents, and witnesses. On a number of occasions, we have withheld enforcement of subpoenas for documents because we were advised that it would have an impact on the criminal trial, which will start this Monday in Little Rock, AR. The defendants in this trial are the present Governor, Jim Guy Tucker, and Susan and Jim McDougal, the business partners of the Clintons. We agreed, Republicans and Democrats, to withhold enforcement of these subpoenas. We have, I believe, made the sensible choice in not attempting to force key witnesses to come before this body. When I say ``this body,'' I am talking about the committee in its fullest sense, which is representative of the Congress of the United States, and more particularly of the Senate of the United States. Although there are key witnesses, I believe it would be irresponsible to simply put aside the concerns of the independent counsel and call these witnesses just so that they can give us information. Some of these witnesses have been defendants and have already pled guilty to various crimes and their testimony may be necessary as it relates to the criminal prosecution which the special counsel, Mr. Starr, is now undertaking in Little Rock. We have always maintained that there may come a time when we may have to insist upon our prerogatives, we have certain constitutional obligations. Even though the independent counsel has his obligations we never agreed that we would at all times forgo calling various witnesses. Indeed, it was the wish and the hope of this Senator, and I think of the majority of the committee, both Democrats and Republicans, to have one of the key witnesses, Judge David Hale testify. Judge Hale has apparently made statements, most of them through other people, that indicate that he was asked, by the then-Governor of the State to make a loan of as much as $300,000 to Mrs. McDougal. Now, Mr. President, let me be clear: I do not know nor do I subscribe to the truth or the falsity of that statement. I do not say it to be sensational. This has been published. This has been published. Both Democrats and Republicans have been interested in bringing Judge Hale before the committee. Let me say I think we acted in a responsible way. We attempted to make, and did make contact with his attorney. We were advised that his attorney was engaged in a number of matters before the Supreme Court of the United States, and indeed we ascertained that he was; further Judge Hale's attorney could not even consider these matters until he had disposed of his arguments. While Judge Hale's attorney did recently dispose of his last argument--sometime I believe in late January or early February--it was, unfortunately, too close to the approaching trial to call Judge Hale before the committee. I believe, and I was not able to share, through counsel, what his definitive thinking was, that Mr. Hale was not made available. We were led to believe that if we insisted and issued a subpoena, that not unlike several other witnesses, Judge Hale's attorney would indicate that his client would raise an issue of privilege, asserting a privilege against self-incrimination. Once this privilege is asserted the Senate rules or the congressional rules are quite clear that you can no longer even call the witness to testify. We recall the days gone by when witnesses were called in and asked questions and they asserted, under oath, their right not to incriminate oneself under the fifth amendment. At some point in our history, and I do not have the exact date, the Congress decided that was not how the Congress should conduct itself. When Congress is advised, by counsel, that a witness would, assert the privilege of taking the fifth amendment, it no longer could bring the witness in just to have a show. To do so would simply appear to be a show where you brought someone in, you asked him a question, he repeated to every question that he was asserting his rights not to incriminate himself or herself. That is the dilemma that we have faced. Otherwise, I want to assure this body it would have been the intent of this Senator, and I believe of every member of the committee, to bring Judge Hale forward and to find out what, if anything, he could share. What information he had, what were the facts to assert. We were unable to do that. We have been unable to do that with maybe 11 or 12 various witnesses that are connected with the trial, which will start this coming Monday. Those witnesses are key to our getting the facts, the whole picture. Again, I am not in a position to offer a judgment with respect to what they may or may not testify to. The information they give to us may be absolutely exculpatory and clear away the cobwebs. They may demonstrate clearly there was no wrongdoing. It may not. But, by gosh, we have an obligation to get the facts. Now, I am going to refer to the New York Times editorial of February 28. This is an editorial position that has been shared in whole or in part by just about every major newspaper. I am talking about the main editorial of the New York Times, not a letter to the editor, not something written by a partisan on one side or the other. The New York Times: The Senate's duty cannot be canceled or truncated because of the campaign calendar. Any certain date for terminating the hearings would encourage even more delay in producing subpoenaed documents than the committee has endured 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. No arguments about politics on other side can outweigh the fact that the White House has yet to reveal the full facts about the land venture, the Clintons' relationship to 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. Mr. President, again, as I have said to my friends and colleagues, any colleague, on any side of an issue, of any party has a right to raise whatever rules or procedural questions that they deem appropriate. I respect everyone's view on this. They have a right. It was never my intent nor did I believe we would be debating this issue on the Senate floor without having completed or essentially completed our work. I did not anticipate, nor do I think the committee anticipated, that those delays would take place; some delays may have been occasionally deliberate; some, perhaps negligent. I am willing to accept the fact that there have been key documents, we wanted from very important people, that were delayed for whatever reason. In some situations because a person left and went from one office to another; in another, someone took one position and thought the papers would be turned over; or one attorney thought another attorney had turned over papers. I am willing to accept that. But the fact of the matter is that those delays have occasioned the problems that we have. Suppose they were accidental, all of them. Accepting that, here is where we are: We have dozens of witnesses yet to be examined. It is not because the committee has not been diligent. While there are those who can come and say, ``You have only met 1 day or 3 days,'' that is a bit disingenuous when one understands the schedules we have. One must take into consideration the scheduling difficulties the committee faces, first; there are witnesses that we have to accommodate for depositions and testimony; the fact that there are at this time, key witnesses that we have been asked not to examine--some because of physical problems, some because of attorneys' schedules. We should be candid about this. Let us try to be forthright. I do not think we do the process any good by attacking one another, applying political labels, indicating that the chairman or anyone else is undertaking this because of partisan politics. Of course, there are political overtones to this. Everyone understands that. But, by gosh, we have a duty to get the facts, and we should do it as expeditiously as possible. Under ordinary circumstances I would think we could accomplish this task, if we had access to all of the witnesses and all of the documents, within a period of 10 weeks or 12 weeks. That should be a reasonable period. But I cannot say that. I am not going to be able, nor will the committee be able, to ascertain with certainty when we will have completed our business. And let me say this, with all honesty and candidness, I know this is a tough debate and I know certain people will be compelled to say certain things. I hope we will not engage in that kind of rhetoric. I have attempted to be moderate. I have really attempted to frame this debate in a manner both sides can participate in reasonably. I understand the concern of my colleagues when they say, let us not run this investigation into September or October. That is not the intent of this Senator. The intent is to get the facts, and I will work to do it in a thorough, coordinated, expeditious manner with my colleagues. But the trial of a key witness starts Monday. It may go 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks. I hope it will end sooner rather than later. The committee must have the opportunity to examine key witnesses and documents--documents, at the very least, that we should have access to, and cannot have access to unless we seek enforcement of the subpoena. Let me ask, should we have insisted that documents from various witnesses be produced, notwithstanding the concern of the court--we had a right to do it, constitutionally. We could have ordered enforcement of those subpoenas. But we decided together, Democrats and Republicans, that it would not be in the interest of this body to delay that prosecution. If we enforced the subpoenas the defendants rightfully, could ask,--and we were advised through their attorneys, would ask--to put that case off. We withheld. I think that was the prudent action. We could have insisted on enforcing the subpoena. I do not think we would have met the mandate under that resolution because the resolution was quite clear. The leaders, Democrat and Republican, were concerned that we not impede the independent counsel. We had other questions, as it related to Iran-Contra, whether or not immunity should or should not be granted. This committee never even crossed that bridge. We could have asked the Senate to consider, or the committee to consider, granting immunity. I think it would have been irresponsible. I think the committee would have decided against it, particularly in light of the objection that would have come. I am not going to characterize the suggestion that was put forth by my Democratic colleagues as anything but a sincere attempt to establish a timeframe so that we could wind up the business of the committee. It was a bona fide offer. I will accept that. But I have to tell you, then, and we say it publicly, that I hope you will understand why, notwithstanding the good intention or motivations, that my colleagues' offer was impossible to accept.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about the minority's refusal to allow the Senate to consider the resolution that I just offered. This resolution would provide additional funds for the Whitewater Special Committee. It would allow the Senate to fulfill its obligation to the American people to obtain the full facts about Whitewater and related matters. Make no mistake about it, this debate is not about money, it is not about deadlines, it is about getting the facts. That is our job. We are committed to getting all the facts about Whitewater. It is now quite clear that the minority is not. With its actions today, and over the past few days, the minority has sent the unmistakable message that it wants to prevent the American people from learning the full facts about Whitewater. That is wrong. What is the minority concerned about? From the beginning, I have said that our committee must get the facts and we must let the chips fall where they may. If the facts exonerate, then so be it. That is good. Again, let the chips fall where they may. If the facts, on the other hand, reveal improper conduct by anyone, the American people have a right to know that as well. Our committee wants the facts. The American people are entitled to the facts. Two days ago, we attempted to move to consideration of a resolution that would have funded Whitewater. But the minority invoked Senate rules to block floor consideration of that resolution. That is their right. But, as the New York Times wrote in a syndicated editorial, ``The committee, politics notwithstanding, has earned an indefinite extension. A Democratic filibuster against it would be silly stonewalling.'' That, Mr. President, is from an editorial in yesterday's New York Times. That is not a partisan spokesperson, nor a partisan policy paper. I will come back to this editorial again. I will ask at this time that the full editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. That is right.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, breast and prostate cancer have taken a horrible toll on women and men throughout the world and we must make every effort to eradicate these pervasive diseases. Breast cancer is a deadly epidemic that strikes over 180,000 women each year. It will kill more than 44,000 women this year alone. Similarly, prostate cancer will strike an estimated 317,000 men, and will kill roughly 41,000 men this year. We cannot allow these appalling rates to continue unabated. We need to do something now. We need a cure and finding a cure takes money--a tremendous amount of money. I rise today to introduce legislation to add another weapon to our arsenal in the fight against breast and prostate cancer. My bill will provide vital resources for the fight to eradicate this dire threat to the lives of women and men across our Nation. In addition, my bill will support our efforts to combat one of the leading cancer killers of men: prostate cancer. This is a very straightforward bill. This bill will augment existing Federal research funding by easily allowing taxpayers to get directly involved by contributing to a newly established fund expressly earmarked for breast and prostate cancer research. On the Federal income tax return there currently exists a box that can be selected for Federal campaign contributions. My bill will amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by establishing a similar box for a Federal breast and prostate cancer research fund. This will allow our citizens to cross swords with this dual scourge by simply placing a check in a box on their income tax return, as with the campaign contribution fund. One point needs to be made very clear--this is not an additional tax. This is a purely voluntary means by which concerned citizens may earmark a minor but vital portion of their Federal income tax payments expressly for breast and prostate cancer research. Breast cancer is a truly horrible disease. Its incidence is rising at an alarming rate. In 1960, 1 out of every 14 women developed breast cancer in her lifetime. A few years ago it was 1 in 10. Now the figure is one in eight. We cannot allow this trend to continue. According to the National Cancer Institute's calculations, breast cancer comprises about 30 percent of all female cancers and it is estimated that the cost to the nation in the form of direct and indirect health care costs will exceed $16 billion annually. The NCI also says that reductions in breast cancer mortality will have a significant influence on these costs to the Nation. Like breast cancer among women, prostate cancer is a leading killer of American men. According to the American Cancer Society, this dreaded disease is the second leading cause of cancer death in men. It is projected to take the lives of approximately 41,000 men in 1996 alone. Congress has just begun to pay more attention to these terrible diseases by devoting increased funding for breast and prostate cancer research at the Federal level. We have made tremendous progress, but much more remains to be done. Given current budget constraints we need a mechanism to increase breast and prostate cancer funding every year from here on out. Our current method of breast cancer treatment is not a cure. Today's treatments for breast cancer are very crude. We treat women with poison, radiation, and radical surgery with the hope that we will kill the cancer and not the woman. This is similar to dropping a tiny atom bomb. What we need is a smart bomb for breast cancer. Something which will specifically kill the breast cancer cells without causing destruction to the rest of the women's body and immune system. This can only be accomplished with an additional infusion of breast cancer research dollars. We also need to recruit more scientists and new ideas and innovations into this field. More money will jumpstart research but it must also cover the funding needs of research scientist and their programs. I am personally determined to do everything I can to fight for the eradication of breast and prostate cancer. I hope to enlist the aid of my colleagues in the establishment of this Federal breast and prostate cancer research fund. Breast and prostate cancer can only be understood, and eventually conquered, through increased research We need a cure and we need one now. It is therefore critical that we all join together in this effort to help speed the discovery of a cure for these dreaded diseases. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of this critical bill.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, breast and prostate cancer have taken a horrible toll on women and men throughout the world and we must make every effort to eradicate these pervasive diseases. Breast cancer is a deadly epidemic that strikes over 180,000 women each year. It will kill more than 44,000 women this year alone. Similarly, prostate cancer will strike an estimated 317,000 men, and will kill roughly 41,000 men this year. We cannot allow these appalling rates to continue unabated. We need to do something now. We need a cure and finding a cure takes money--a tremendous amount of money. I rise today to introduce legislation to add another weapon to our arsenal in the fight against breast and prostate cancer. My bill will provide vital resources for the fight to eradicate this dire threat to the lives of women and men across our Nation. In addition, my bill will support our efforts to combat one of the leading cancer killers of men: prostate cancer. This is a very straightforward bill. This bill will augment existing Federal research funding by easily allowing taxpayers to get directly involved by contributing to a newly established fund expressly earmarked for breast and prostate cancer research. On the Federal income tax return there currently exists a box that can be selected for Federal campaign contributions. My bill will amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by establishing a similar box for a Federal breast and prostate cancer research fund. This will allow our citizens to cross swords with this dual scourge by simply placing a check in a box on their income tax return, as with the campaign contribution fund. One point needs to be made very clear--this is not an additional tax. This is a purely voluntary means by which concerned citizens may earmark a minor but vital portion of their Federal income tax payments expressly for breast and prostate cancer research. Breast cancer is a truly horrible disease. Its incidence is rising at an alarming rate. In 1960, 1 out of every 14 women developed breast cancer in her lifetime. A few years ago it was 1 in 10. Now the figure is one in eight. We cannot allow this trend to continue. According to the National Cancer Institute's calculations, breast cancer comprises about 30 percent of all female cancers and it is estimated that the cost to the nation in the form of direct and indirect health care costs will exceed $16 billion annually. The NCI also says that reductions in breast cancer mortality will have a significant influence on these costs to the Nation. Like breast cancer among women, prostate cancer is a leading killer of American men. According to the American Cancer Society, this dreaded disease is the second leading cause of cancer death in men. It is projected to take the lives of approximately 41,000 men in 1996 alone. Congress has just begun to pay more attention to these terrible diseases by devoting increased funding for breast and prostate cancer research at the Federal level. We have made tremendous progress, but much more remains to be done. Given current budget constraints we need a mechanism to increase breast and prostate cancer funding every year from here on out. Our current method of breast cancer treatment is not a cure. Today's treatments for breast cancer are very crude. We treat women with poison, radiation, and radical surgery with the hope that we will kill the cancer and not the woman. This is similar to dropping a tiny atom bomb. What we need is a smart bomb for breast cancer. Something which will specifically kill the breast cancer cells without causing destruction to the rest of the women's body and immune system. This can only be accomplished with an additional infusion of breast cancer research dollars. We also need to recruit more scientists and new ideas and innovations into this field. More money will jumpstart research but it must also cover the funding needs of research scientist and their programs. I am personally determined to do everything I can to fight for the eradication of breast and prostate cancer. I hope to enlist the aid of my colleagues in the establishment of this Federal breast and prostate cancer research fund. Breast and prostate cancer can only be understood, and eventually conquered, through increased research We need a cure and we need one now. It is therefore critical that we all join together in this effort to help speed the discovery of a cure for these dreaded diseases. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of this critical bill.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my distinguished colleagues, Senators Hatch, Baucus, and Simpson, in introducing legislation to extend certain expiring tax provisions. Over the years, all of the provisions in this bill have received support from most Members of Congress. In the first session of this Congress, I joined Senator Hatch in cosponsoring legislation to extend the tax benefits on a number of these provisions. In addition, on June 29, 1995, I introduced S. 997 to permanently reinstate the tax exclusion for employer-provided group legal services. I am very pleased that that provision has been included in this bill. Mr. President, this bill is an important and necessary piece of legislation. As such, I urge my colleagues to join us in the effort to extend these important benefits.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, on this vote, I have a pair with the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici]. If he were present and voting, he would vote ``yea.'' If I were permitted to vote, I would vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I withhold my vote.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to commend my colleague from Iowa for introducing this bill that will help to curb the international flow of drugs, particularly into the United States. Narcotics have become a scourge in our country and it is about time that we start to take action to eradicate it at all levels. Since illegal drugs found on our streets are most often produced in other countries, foreign nations must also take action to prevent the production, transportation and distribution of illegal drugs. So far, there has been very little action to make foreign countries accountable for the drugs trafficked in the United States. This bill, which focuses on Colombia, will do just that. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, cocaine production, transportation and distribution has been managed primarily by the Colombian drug cartel, making cocaine available everywhere in the United States. The Cali cartel controls about 80 percent of the world's cocaine trafficking. The Colombian Government has not done enough to put an end to the drug problem. Last year, United States officials expressed disappointment with the cooperation level of the Colombian Government in the counternarcotics effort. However, the administration sought to waive the certification for Colombia and permit United States aid to continue for development in Colombia. In an effort to justify the financial assistance, this bill would require the President to certify to Congress that Colombia has begun to take the appropriate measures to limit the power of the drug traffickers and squash the flow of illegal drugs. Such methods include: the eradication of drug crops, interdiction of drug shipments, and the strengthening of the Colombian law enforcement and judicial authorities. It is only fair that American taxpayers, who pay for the foreign aid to Colombia, receive some assurance that the Colombian Government will attempt to reduce the production and distribution of drugs. With the recent disclosure of the ties between the Cali cartel and officials of the Colombia Government, the timing of this bill could not be any better. Various insiders of the Cali mafia have recounted the influence exerted by the Cali mafia on high level Colombian officials, all the way to the President of Colombia. A former campaign manager for President Ernesto Samper Pizano is currently jailed for soliciting contributions from drug traffickers in order to finance the Colombian presidential campaign. Fernando Botero Zea, who also served as Colombia's former defense minister, claims that Colombian President Samper knew about the money from the drug traffickers. It is suggested that his presidential campaign accepted $5.9 million from the Cali cartel. Colombia should be accountable for its failure to actively participate in the counternarcotics effort. This bill places pressure on the Colombian Government government to take steps to control the drug problem in Colombia. Any steps taken will have a direct effect on the flow of narcotics into the United States. But a failure to participate in the international counternarcotics effort should result in the loss of financial assistance provided by the United States. In light of recent developments in Colombia, I am pleased that my colleague is offering this bill and am proud to co-sponsor this important measure.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, when asked to describe an image of baseball, the near unanimous and immediate picture painted would be of a warm summer night sitting in the bleachers with your kids, enjoying a hot dog or some peanuts, and rooting for the home team. Similarly when asked about the origins of baseball, fans from the youngest to the oldest will tell you that baseball originates in New York. It is that heritage that I wish to memorialize in legislation that I am submitting today. I am proud to submit the resolution with my friend and colleague, New York's senior Senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. On a lazy afternoon in 1839, a young man from Cooperstown, Abner Doubleday, chased the cows out of Elihu Phinney's pasture and was struck with the inspiration to invent a game that we now know as baseball. In true recognition of Cooperstown's place in history, the National Baseball Hall of Fame is located there. Today, Cooperstown is the mecca for all baseball fans where, in the Hall of Fame, they can see the unfolding of baseball from its early beginnings to its great modern era. Within the National Baseball Hall of Fame outstanding players such as Babe Ruth, Lou Gherig, Cy Young, Ty Cobb, Joe DiMaggio, and Jackie Robinson are immortalized. In addition to plaques celebrating the achievements of baseball's greats, Cooperstown has the largest collection of game-winning baseballs, record-breaking bats, and paraphernalia chronicling achievements and activities of all kinds in relation to the game of baseball and baseball's impact on American society. Shortly after Doubleday's inspiration, a group of gentlemen, led by Alexander Joy Cartwright, Jr., was meeting in fields all over Manhattan in New York City, playing baseball according to rules laid out by Cartwright. These men began playing baseball as early as 1842 in a small plot of ground on Twenty-seventh Street--a spot now occupied by the Harlem Railroad depot. Cartwright and his friends were forced to play at three different locations on Manhattan in order to escape the encroachment of a growing New York City. On September 23, 1845, they finally formally organized themselves into a baseball club known as the Knickerbockers Base Ball Club. Efforts have been attempted in the past to lay claim to Cooperstown's, and indeed New York's place in baseball history. Such efforts continue to this day. But as every little-leaguer knows, New York will always be the true home of baseball. Also, as any baseball history buff knows, New York City is home to our nation's earliest organized baseball team. Baseball fans everywhere will not be fooled by those who would claim otherwise. Therefore, to make sure that all Americans know the rightful role New York holds in the birth of baseball, we are introducing a resolution calling for congressional recognition of this distinction. It is my hope that with the Senate's passage of this resolution, we may once and for all dispel all contrary claims to baseball's heritage. We encourage all true fans of baseball in the Senate to join in cosponsoring this resolution.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to commend my colleague from Iowa for introducing this bill that will help to curb the international flow of drugs, particularly into the United States. Narcotics have become a scourge in our country and it is about time that we start to take action to eradicate it at all levels. Since illegal drugs found on our streets are most often produced in other countries, foreign nations must also take action to prevent the production, transportation and distribution of illegal drugs. So far, there has been very little action to make foreign countries accountable for the drugs trafficked in the United States. This bill, which focuses on Colombia, will do just that. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, cocaine production, transportation and distribution has been managed primarily by the Colombian drug cartel, making cocaine available everywhere in the United States. The Cali cartel controls about 80 percent of the world's cocaine trafficking. The Colombian Government has not done enough to put an end to the drug problem. Last year, United States officials expressed disappointment with the cooperation level of the Colombian Government in the counternarcotics effort. However, the administration sought to waive the certification for Colombia and permit United States aid to continue for development in Colombia. In an effort to justify the financial assistance, this bill would require the President to certify to Congress that Colombia has begun to take the appropriate measures to limit the power of the drug traffickers and squash the flow of illegal drugs. Such methods include: the eradication of drug crops, interdiction of drug shipments, and the strengthening of the Colombian law enforcement and judicial authorities. It is only fair that American taxpayers, who pay for the foreign aid to Colombia, receive some assurance that the Colombian Government will attempt to reduce the production and distribution of drugs. With the recent disclosure of the ties between the Cali cartel and officials of the Colombia Government, the timing of this bill could not be any better. Various insiders of the Cali mafia have recounted the influence exerted by the Cali mafia on high level Colombian officials, all the way to the President of Colombia. A former campaign manager for President Ernesto Samper Pizano is currently jailed for soliciting contributions from drug traffickers in order to finance the Colombian presidential campaign. Fernando Botero Zea, who also served as Colombia's former defense minister, claims that Colombian President Samper knew about the money from the drug traffickers. It is suggested that his presidential campaign accepted $5.9 million from the Cali cartel. Colombia should be accountable for its failure to actively participate in the counternarcotics effort. This bill places pressure on the Colombian Government government to take steps to control the drug problem in Colombia. Any steps taken will have a direct effect on the flow of narcotics into the United States. But a failure to participate in the international counternarcotics effort should result in the loss of financial assistance provided by the United States. In light of recent developments in Colombia, I am pleased that my colleague is offering this bill and am proud to co-sponsor this important measure.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am pleased to support this bill and would like to clarify that the language contained in the proposed legislation adds to the types of retirement income eligible for exemption. This language clearly intends to exempt from tax nonqualified deferred compensation that constitutes legitimate retirement income. Because it affects retirement income, only income form qualified retirement plans and nonqualified retirement plans that are paid out over at least 10 years, or from a mirror-type nonqualified plan after termination of employment, is exempt from State taxation. The language does not prohibit states from imposing an income tax on non-residents' regular wages or compensation. Cash bonuses or other compensation arrangements that defer the receipt of salary, bonuses, and other types of wage-related compensation that are not paid out over at least 10 years or from a mirror-type nonqualified retirement plan are not exempt from State taxation. One example would be if a salary is earned in a State by an individual, whether a resident or nonresident, but is voluntarily deferred for a few years until the individual exits the State, and then is paid over in a lump-sum, even while the individual is still employed by the company, that kind of payment should not qualify for exemption from nonresident taxation of pensions. It is the intent of this bill to permit the States to continue to tax this income, while protecting from taxation those deferred payments that are for retirement income, paid from plans designed for that purpose.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, the Mexican economic meltdown is over a year old and no one--not the Mexican people and certainly not the American taxpayers--have seen any signs of improvement or relief. Last year, the Clinton administration rushed in to bail out the Mexican Government with an ill-conceived, and legally tenuous, financial assistance package that spent billions of taxpayer dollars. The time has come to stop this financial hemorrhage. Since February 21, 1995, when the administration signed its Financial Assistance Agreement with Mexico, I have been saying that the Clinton bailout was an ill-conceived disaster. It is not just my opinion, it is the cold hard facts. You only need to look at the Mexican economic indicators, including 50-percent interest rates and staggering inflation, and the suffering of the Mexican people to realize that the plan is not working. Mexico's real economy is still in shambles: record numbers of Mexicans are out of work, interest rates are soaring, the people are starving, and the country is reeling under increasing social and political unrest. Christopher Whalen, writing in the January 21, 1996, edition of the Washington Post, stated ``As in the 1970's, the Mexicans are again addicted to the debt that we have been spoon-feeding them, and they still can't pay it back.'' Mr. President, the only people who have benefited from the Clinton bailout are the global investors, the currency speculators, Mexican business leaders, and high paid advisers retained by the Mexican Government. The Mexican bailout was doomed to disaster from the very beginning. Congress rejected Clinton's bailout scheme last year, despite the administration's doomsday predictions of an international financial crisis and waves of illegal immigration. The global financial crisis never materialized but hordes of illegal immigrants are still crossing our borders in an attempt to escape their desperate living conditions. Their hardships are a direct result of inept Mexican economic policies and the harsh austerity measures the Clinton administration imposed upon the Mexican people as part of the bailout. Mr. President, Mexico has received over $25 billion and it has not solved anything. The Clinton administration bypassed Congress and sent billions of hard-earned American taxpayer dollars to a country reeling under narco-corruption and failed economic policies. Mexico's downward spiral is accelerating and the fallout is only beginning. According to the terms of the Financial Assistance Agreement between the administration and Mexico--Article 3, section 7--the agreement expires after 1 year, on February 21, 1996, and it may be extended by the Secretary of Treasury for another 6 months. Secretary Rubin has indicated that the Treasury Department intends to extend the bailout for another 6 months so now is the time for Congress to act. Mr. President, my colleague and friend, Senator Feinstein and I, are cosponsoring this bill which would place strong conditions on the administration to stop them from wasting more taxpayer dollars on the Mexican bailout, by preventing an extension of the Assistance Agreement, and stopping any additional rollovers of the money already owed to the United States, as of the first of this year. At the very least, if the President decides to continue squandering any more of the remaining $10.5 billion of U.S. taxpayer money already committed to Mexico, he should be required to certify that Mexico is doing all that it can to stop the massive flow of narcotics into our country. This should not be a simple certification--it should be tough and thorough. This bill will require Mexico to take strong action to fight the drug lords and narcotics kings who are becoming multimillionaires by importing drugs into our country. Our bill sets several pertinent conditions regarding the enormous amounts of drugs Mexico is sending to this country every day. In our bill, the President must certify that Mexico has satisfied each of these conditions before sending any more taxpayer money to Mexico. The Congress already passed a certification requirement related to the Mexican bailout last year in the Mexican Debt Disclosure Act, which required the President to certify normal business standards were being imposed on the loans and money sent to Mexico. A few key facts on the severity of the drug problem with Mexico vividly illustrate the need for immediate action: The Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA] estimates that over 70 percent of the cocaine in the United States crosses the United States- Mexico border. Using Mexico as storage for the cocaine, the Colombian drug organizations may be holding cocaine with a street value of up to $1 billion. According to the DEA, virtually all of the heroin produced in Mexico is trafficked in the United States. The DEA also reports that more than 50 percent of the marijuana found in the United States came from Mexico, either cultivated there or transshipped through Mexico from other localities. It appears that trafficking gangs in Mexico are also involved in all aspects of the methamphetamine trade: producing, trafficking, and distributing it as well as the chemicals used to manufacture the methamphetamines. Law enforcement officials have noticed an increase in its availability in the United States. The recent arrest of Juan Garcia Abrego, described as an international drug kingpin and said to have headed a billion-dollar drug empire, may hold the key to understanding just how big the Mexican drug organizations are and the volume of drugs they traffick into the United States. The information that he provides to U.S. law enforcement is a glimpse into the underground world of international drug trafficking. His arrest is merely the tip of the iceberg. Currently, the Colombian cartel and the drug trafficking gangs in Mexico are working in partnership to deliver and distribute multitons of narcotics into the United States. However, Assistant Secretary of State Robert Gelbard told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that, with the arrest of leaders of the Columbian Cali cartel, Mexican drug trafficking gangs may be able to actively traffick these drugs themselves. No doubt, there will be an increase in the availability of narcotics as a direct result of the Mexican drug gangs' interest in narcotics distribution, and the ease with which they can transport it into the United States. Mr. President, this bill is an important first step in addressing two very serious problems affecting the American people. This bill will force the Clinton administration and the Mexican Government to make real and substantial efforts to halt the flow of illegal drugs into our country. The bill also sends notice to the administration that the Congress, and the American people, are tired of having hard-earned taxpayer dollars squandered. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, the Mexican economic meltdown is over a year old and no one--not the Mexican people and certainly not the American taxpayers--have seen any signs of improvement or relief. Last year, the Clinton administration rushed in to bail out the Mexican Government with an ill-conceived, and legally tenuous, financial assistance package that spent billions of taxpayer dollars. The time has come to stop this financial hemorrhage. Since February 21, 1995, when the administration signed its Financial Assistance Agreement with Mexico, I have been saying that the Clinton bailout was an ill-conceived disaster. It is not just my opinion, it is the cold hard facts. You only need to look at the Mexican economic indicators, including 50-percent interest rates and staggering inflation, and the suffering of the Mexican people to realize that the plan is not working. Mexico's real economy is still in shambles: record numbers of Mexicans are out of work, interest rates are soaring, the people are starving, and the country is reeling under increasing social and political unrest. Christopher Whalen, writing in the January 21, 1996, edition of the Washington Post, stated ``As in the 1970's, the Mexicans are again addicted to the debt that we have been spoon-feeding them, and they still can't pay it back.'' Mr. President, the only people who have benefited from the Clinton bailout are the global investors, the currency speculators, Mexican business leaders, and high paid advisers retained by the Mexican Government. The Mexican bailout was doomed to disaster from the very beginning. Congress rejected Clinton's bailout scheme last year, despite the administration's doomsday predictions of an international financial crisis and waves of illegal immigration. The global financial crisis never materialized but hordes of illegal immigrants are still crossing our borders in an attempt to escape their desperate living conditions. Their hardships are a direct result of inept Mexican economic policies and the harsh austerity measures the Clinton administration imposed upon the Mexican people as part of the bailout. Mr. President, Mexico has received over $25 billion and it has not solved anything. The Clinton administration bypassed Congress and sent billions of hard-earned American taxpayer dollars to a country reeling under narco-corruption and failed economic policies. Mexico's downward spiral is accelerating and the fallout is only beginning. According to the terms of the Financial Assistance Agreement between the administration and Mexico--Article 3, section 7--the agreement expires after 1 year, on February 21, 1996, and it may be extended by the Secretary of Treasury for another 6 months. Secretary Rubin has indicated that the Treasury Department intends to extend the bailout for another 6 months so now is the time for Congress to act. Mr. President, my colleague and friend, Senator Feinstein and I, are cosponsoring this bill which would place strong conditions on the administration to stop them from wasting more taxpayer dollars on the Mexican bailout, by preventing an extension of the Assistance Agreement, and stopping any additional rollovers of the money already owed to the United States, as of the first of this year. At the very least, if the President decides to continue squandering any more of the remaining $10.5 billion of U.S. taxpayer money already committed to Mexico, he should be required to certify that Mexico is doing all that it can to stop the massive flow of narcotics into our country. This should not be a simple certification--it should be tough and thorough. This bill will require Mexico to take strong action to fight the drug lords and narcotics kings who are becoming multimillionaires by importing drugs into our country. Our bill sets several pertinent conditions regarding the enormous amounts of drugs Mexico is sending to this country every day. In our bill, the President must certify that Mexico has satisfied each of these conditions before sending any more taxpayer money to Mexico. The Congress already passed a certification requirement related to the Mexican bailout last year in the Mexican Debt Disclosure Act, which required the President to certify normal business standards were being imposed on the loans and money sent to Mexico. A few key facts on the severity of the drug problem with Mexico vividly illustrate the need for immediate action: The Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA] estimates that over 70 percent of the cocaine in the United States crosses the United States- Mexico border. Using Mexico as storage for the cocaine, the Colombian drug organizations may be holding cocaine with a street value of up to $1 billion. According to the DEA, virtually all of the heroin produced in Mexico is trafficked in the United States. The DEA also reports that more than 50 percent of the marijuana found in the United States came from Mexico, either cultivated there or transshipped through Mexico from other localities. It appears that trafficking gangs in Mexico are also involved in all aspects of the methamphetamine trade: producing, trafficking, and distributing it as well as the chemicals used to manufacture the methamphetamines. Law enforcement officials have noticed an increase in its availability in the United States. The recent arrest of Juan Garcia Abrego, described as an international drug kingpin and said to have headed a billion-dollar drug empire, may hold the key to understanding just how big the Mexican drug organizations are and the volume of drugs they traffick into the United States. The information that he provides to U.S. law enforcement is a glimpse into the underground world of international drug trafficking. His arrest is merely the tip of the iceberg. Currently, the Colombian cartel and the drug trafficking gangs in Mexico are working in partnership to deliver and distribute multitons of narcotics into the United States. However, Assistant Secretary of State Robert Gelbard told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that, with the arrest of leaders of the Columbian Cali cartel, Mexican drug trafficking gangs may be able to actively traffick these drugs themselves. No doubt, there will be an increase in the availability of narcotics as a direct result of the Mexican drug gangs' interest in narcotics distribution, and the ease with which they can transport it into the United States. Mr. President, this bill is an important first step in addressing two very serious problems affecting the American people. This bill will force the Clinton administration and the Mexican Government to make real and substantial efforts to halt the flow of illegal drugs into our country. The bill also sends notice to the administration that the Congress, and the American people, are tired of having hard-earned taxpayer dollars squandered. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the true spirit of the holiday season and pay special tribute to Trans World Airlines (TWA) for its generosity in helping to make Christmas a truly special time for one of my constituents, Mr. Mouris Astafanous. To have a chance of survival, doctors told Mr. Astafanous that he would need a bone marrow transplant. Tests had indicated that his sister, Ms. Wedad Astafanous of Cairo, Egypt, met the incredible 20,000 to 1 odds of finding a perfect match. However, State Department red tape prevented Ms. Astafanous from flying to America to help her brother. Because of these bureacratic hurdles, Ms. Astafanous was being denied the opportunity to help save her brother's life. At the request of the Astafanous family, I contacted the American Amdassador in Cairo who guaranteed his personal assistance in helping Wedad, and less than 24 hours later, she was granted the necessary visa. Once a visa was secured, it was necessary to obtain an airline ticket for the trip to New York. TWA responded to my request for help in this situation. TWA CEO and president, Jeff Erickson, ensured that Ms. Astafanous' travel plans were arranged in a proper and timely manner. TWA then flew Ms. Astafanous from Egypt to New York so that she would be able to give her critically ill brother one of the greatest gifts of all, the gift of hope. Mr. Erickson's actions, along with the cooperation of TWA employees, have helped to provide the support the Astafanous family needs in this critical time. Ms. Astafanous arrived in New York on the morning of Christmas Eve and immediately went to her brother's hospital bedside for a joyous reunion. Mouris' spirits have been immeasurably lifted by the arrival of his sister as have the spirits of all who have been touched by this wonderful family. I have had the honor of meeting Mouris and the entire Astafanous family. They are a family of great strength and courage. My prayers, and I am sure the prayers of all my colleagues, are with Mouris Astafanous, his sister Wedad, and the entire Astafanous family. Thank you, Mr. President. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)