Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, as we embark on this new year, I think it might do us all well if we were to put aside the rhetoric of confrontation and attempt to come together on some principles that so many have articulated for so long but have failed to really enact. I do believe there might be a handful--and I say a handful--who do not believe there should be a balanced budget. I have not identified anyone. No one has ever told me they are opposed to that, whether they be Democrats or Republicans. Over the 15 years now that I have been here, I have seen us work, Democrats and Republicans, to attempt to achieve that. I have seen us pass Gramm-Rudman in an attempt to bring about a balanced budget. On the campaign trail, it is great fodder to say I am for a balanced budget, I want that, and yet when it comes to doing the business of the people, we have failed to do that. We have failed to achieve it. And the reason is because it is not easy. It is difficult. The reason is that because the same people, our constituents, who, on the one hand, say and demand we do the business of the people, as we should, in a responsible manner, that we cut out the wasteful programs, that we reform systems such as the welfare system that certainly needs an overhaul and should be reformed and turned into a workfare system, when it really comes down to implementing what is necessary to achieve a balanced budget, the same people in many cases are the first to come to us and to beseech us to cut spending, but, by the way, there is a good program and it is in education or it is in the arts or it is as it relates to transportation or drug treatment, all of these good programs that are for seniors and do not cut that program. Everybody has a favorite program. That is without even touching the area of entitlements that people are afraid to even speak to. The fact of the matter is that if you were to reduce or eliminate the spending in all of the discretionary programs, eliminate any of the moneys that we spend on education, any of the money that we spend on the military, on defense, and all of the money that we might spend in housing and urban development, in mass transit, eliminate it all, that unless we begin to curtail the growth in the entitlement programs, begin to reduce that growth in Medicare, in Medicaid, why, then, it makes no sense, we will continue to operate with huge deficits. That means we are mortgaging the future of our children and their children and future generations. I suggest that that is not responsible. That is an easy way out. That is what has been taking place for far too long. So as we embark upon this new year, I hope that maybe we will stop being accusatory, one side blaming the other--all of us know that this is not going to be easy--but attempt to come together and to say, how can we moderate the growth in these programs? I have heard friends of mine, Democrats, indeed, at the White House, the President, Mrs. Clinton, have talked about slowing the growth in these programs. How is it now that that rhetoric has turned so harsh? How is it now that those who attempt to implement the same suggestions that were put forth by the White House in good faith are now accused of attempting to savage senior citizens? That is inaccurate. It is not fair. Rather than one side or the other being accusatory, why do we not attempt to build on those things that we agree on? If we agree there is a need to balance the budget, if we agree and we have spoken to doing it within a prescribed period of time, if we have agreed that we would use realistic numbers and not pie in the sky, why do we not begin to do this? It would seem to me that the people of the United States have every right to be angered at both the administration and the Congress for not resolving these differences in an appropriate fashion by working at it and not by delaying and not by taking extended vacations and not by PR and not by spin doctors, but by coming down honestly to resolve this in a manner that all of us know can and should be done. So I do not come to the floor for the purposes of blaming one side or the other or pointing a finger toward the administration or saying that all that we have put forth in our balanced budget proposals must be and should be adopted. But certainly within the bounds of those that have been suggested, those suggestions by the administration, and within the bounds that have been put forth by the Congress, there is ample opportunity, there has been and there is now, that if we exert ourselves and exhort ourselves not to try to be one up on the other side, one up so we can aggrandize it and claim credit, then why do we not take a look at what we owe the people? There are suggestions that make sense. It would call for some collective coming together and some courage to be demonstrated on both sides. The senior Senator from New York, my colleague, Senator Moynihan, has put forth as a suggestion looking at the CPI. The CPI no longer adequately reflects what the true costs are as it relates to goods and products and services and indeed has been estimated as being off by as much as one-third--one-third. We say, what is 1 percent? But 1 percent, if you have a 3-percent increase in the inflation rate, is one-third. Why not then use legitimate numbers to measure what the cost-of- living increase is, what the cost for the consumer really is? That would take some courage on both parts, on the side of the Republicans and the Republican Congress as well as our colleagues on the Democratic side, and on the side of the White House. But, my gosh, if it is a fact, and if it is true, why do we not come together and say, this is the place to start? We might be able to save $150 billion. Imagine that. Why can we not have the good common sense, again, collectively, Democrats and Republicans, both in the Congress and in the administration, the Executive, to say this is something we can agree on? If we do it together, that together we can go forward and say this is the right thing to do, why then, that is what we should be expected to do. I do not know that it should even take such great courage. But if one side is afraid the other will then run to the various lobbying groups and to the seniors and claim that they are trying to cut back their increased benefits, then let us do it collectively, let us go forward collectively. There is $100 billion-plus that can be saved. Should it be saved? I suggest that we have an obligation to do that and, again, to do it together. I suggest that we are wrong in postponing the inevitability of what will take place, which is mortgaging the future and saddling future generations with this great burden, which will mean that they will lose the opportunities that we had in terms of home ownership, in terms of jobs, in terms of creativity that otherwise is going to be stifled in this country. It seems to me that there are areas that we can agree upon. You cannot continue to double the growth of any program every 7 years. It is a simple mathematical proposition that if you increase spending at the rate of 10 percent per annum over 7 years, you come up with the figure of 2. You have doubled whatever that cost is. So in the area of Medicare, if you are spending $100 billion now, and you increase spending by 10 percent per annum, in 7 years it will be $200 billion. Does that make sense? Of course not. So it would seem to me that together we should begin to say, how can we moderate the growth in various programs? Yes, good programs, necessary programs. Where can we achieve savings? How can we do that? In the area of taxes and tax relief, does any side really believe one side wants to advance the interests of the wealthy over those of working people, over those of people who are struggling to make a living? It might be good rhetoric politically for one side or the other to charge that, but how does that advance the business of doing what we should on behalf of the people? We detract, and we detract from ourselves. We detract from the process. And people then come and say, ``We need a change. We need to change what is going on. A pox on both your houses.'' I hope we would begin to address, where can we give tax relief? And who is entitled to tax relief? Are working-class, middle-class families with children entitled to that relief? Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity of putting forth just some suggestions in a new year, in the spirit of attempting to come together and to do the business of the people. I hope we could all reach out together, Democrats, Republicans, legislative and executive, to do that business. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, first, I extend New Year's greetings to all my colleagues and constituents and wish them and their families a healthy new year.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Dodd.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to see to it that the much-needed reform in the area of securities litigation is undertaken. By overriding the President's veto, that reform would be ensured. I have notes here, comprehensive notes that detail the reasons why we have to change this system--one reform the bill makes is to bar professional plaintiffs, people who have little interest in a corporation who might own 10 shares of stock who are literally hired by the lawyers to bring these suits. That is wrong, but that is what is going on. The legislation makes all kinds of improvements, but let me put my notes aside and refer to this morning's Washington Post. In its lead editorial, the Washington Post says quite clearly: ``Override the Securities Bill Veto.'' Let me refer to just one part of it: This bill would correct important flaws in the securities laws that are being systematically exploited by lawyers in ways that have nothing to do with fairness. Mr. President, that is exactly what this legislation does. It corrects the law to protect investors. It gives to those people who are defrauded the opportunity, for the first time, to see to it that lawyers who will really represent their interests lead the case, as opposed to having a lawyer in charge who says, ``I have the best practice in the world because I have no clients.'' Imagine this attorney who, by the way, has contributed millions of dollars to a political party and who is exerting incredible pressure, who has paid millions of dollars for people to take out ads, phony groups, little startup groups, groups that then say, ``Protect the investors, protect the investors''. He has spent millions of dollars to oppose this bill--millions of dollars, and he brags about the fact that he makes his living--a very comfortable one of millions of dollars-- because he has no clients. ``I have no clients. That's the best kind of practice to have.'' We have to put those lawyers out of business. Let me say, when it comes to protecting the interests of attorneys and litigants and seeing to it that claims can and should be sustained where there is merit, this Senator has been there with his support every time. I am not suggesting to you that this bill is perfect. I am not suggesting to you that there may not be some areas in which we will have to reform this legislation, but to suggest that we are now going to permit fraud is as wrong as it is to suggest that what is taking place now is preferable to reform. It is not and this legislation is not going to permit fraud. This practice is wrong. This is bilking the system. This is bilking the small investor. This system as it stands is encouraging the kind of operation that hurts small investors and makes no sense; this legislation is long overdue. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Washington Post editorial that appeared today be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I think we have said everything that has to be said. I know we want to commence voting at 11:15, so I yield back. Unless any of my colleagues on the other side want to use the balance of the time, I yield back our time so we can take up the other matter.

Mr. D'AMATO. I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague for his graciousness, but as I only have several minutes of remarks, I can certainly wait. I would just as soon listen to my colleague, because I want him to know that even when we differ on subject matters, I find myself always learning when he speaks, particularly when he speaks on the subject of law. I have great respect for the cogent arguments that my colleague and friend presents. I might also say, that yesterday we heard some remarks as it relates to how members in this body, in particular, should treat each other. I daresay, that while my colleague and I probably had some very diametrically opposed positions, I hope that in the context of our discourse today, Mr. President, we understand that might even be encouraged and learn from these differences at times. I cannot ever recall an occasion where I have felt better about coming away with a slightly different opinion. If you keep your mind open, sometimes--even if you arrive at a different position--you learn something. You learn that there is something out there that maybe you have not factored in fully and later on if we have kept an open mind and are willing to learn, as this is not a static body and the law is not static, whether it is securities reform litigation or some other legislation, we can correct positions if they have to be corrected. I must say, Senator Bryan has been one of those Senators whose views have been very instructive to this Senator personally, and I thank him for the manner in which he has always conducted himself. It is exemplary. I do not ever envy or look forward to the opportunity of debating with the Senator. They are always good debates, but I have to tell you, he is one of the finest debaters, and he is a gentleman, in the truest sense, in terms of the great traditions of the Senate of the United States. I just thought during this season as we approach a very special holiday season, sometimes it would pay for us to reflect, that even though we have differences of opinion and, indeed, as is the case of the legislation that is before this body today, I look back at our differences and I think we have been able to maintain our position without losing a sense of balance.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the purposes of bringing the Senate up to date, that I may be permitted to proceed for no longer than 5 minutes in morning business.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1995. I wish to thank Senators Mack, Bond, Shelby, Bennett, and Domenici for their cosponsorship of this much needed legislation. This important measure would provide short-term extensions of housing programs which have expired. This bill does not create new housing policy, but is a stopgap measure which would allow existing programs to continue until October 1, 1996. Next year, the Banking Committee and its Housing Subcommittees will continue its evaluation of proposals for reorganization and elimination of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Omnibus housing legislation will be introduced in the Spring of 1996 which will reorganize, transfer or eliminate housing and community development programs. Some of the programs extended in this legislation will be reformed at that time. Modifications of these programs will be reserved until the Banking Committee has the opportunity for hearings and debate next year. The majority of the housing program extensions contained in this bill were passed by the Senate and House in the fiscal year 1996 Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill (H.R. 2099). If it were not for the recent veto of H.R. 2099, this legislation would not be necessary. However, the President's veto has placed our Nation's housing delivery system in serious jeopardy. It is imperative that we act to extend housing programs which would otherwise be suspended for an indefinite time period. This legislation would extend the following: Section 8 contract renewals; the Community Development Block Grant homeownership program; the Section 515 rural multifamily loan program; the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program; and the Multifamily Housing Risk-Sharing programs. I look forward to working with all Members of the Senate on a bipartisan basis to ensure the swift passage of this much needed legislation. I urge my colleagues to protect the needy recipients of these effective housing programs by supporting the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1995. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. The 27th.

Mr. D'AMATO. No, I yield to my friend, certainly. I think it would be appropriate, if he wants to do that, to yield to him now for purposes of making his remarks at this time.

Mr. D'AMATO. Yes. I asked I might be permitted to proceed in morning business for no more than 5 minutes, just for the purposes of that update. That was the only thing I asked. But I was now going to address the securities reform litigation.

Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, yesterday, after a full day of debate, the Senate voted to authorize Senate legal counsel to go to court to enforce the subpoena of the Whitewater Special Committee for the notes of William Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy took these notes at a Whitewater defense meeting at the offices of Williams and Connolly. This meeting was attended by private counsel for the Clintons and four Government employees. I have today asked the Senate legal counsel to begin the process of enforcing the subpoena as quickly as possible. The Senate will ask the court to rule on a Senate enforcement action on an expedited basis so that we can get a determination in the courts as quickly as possible. Now, the Senate legal counsel will file papers with the court on Wednesday, December 27. There are a number of things he must do prior to that. I have been informed he has attempted to contact counsel for Mr. Kennedy, personal counsel for the President and Mrs. Clinton, and the White House counsel to discuss a schedule in order to obtain a court ruling as fast as possible. That is so that we can have an expedited proceeding. I hope they will try to arrange for that. As I have said repeatedly, and I want to reiterate, the Senate will stop any action to enforce the subpoena as soon as we have Mr. Kennedy's notes. Until that time, though, we will continue and take all action necessary to enforce the subpoena. So there will be no mistake, while I hope we can get these notes without having to go to court, we are not going to wait or delay and then have a situation where negotiations may break down. I understand they are negotiating--that is, ``they'' being White House counsel and the President's counsel-- right now with Members of the House. As I said before, I believe that the Senate and the American people have a right to all of the facts about Whitewater. If these notes help us obtain those, certainly, they should be provided. Again, we are going forward, but I say if we get the notes we will stop the proceedings. At this time, though, we are attempting to get an expedited proceeding. It is our intent to be in court on December 27. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for permitting the opportunity for bringing that update.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am not going to speak for more than 30 seconds on this whole issue of the subpoena. I just wanted to serve notice and let the administration know that, again, if they successfully complete their negotiations with whoever they are negotiating with--the House and whatever Members--that is fine, as long as we get the notes. If we do not, if it gets protracted, we will continue. I have to do that so that the process does not break down. So I thought I would at least bring us up to date on that.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to remain firm in their support of this legislation, legislation that, just two weeks ago, was passed overwhelmingly in the Senate, legislation that was passed overwhelmingly in the House, legislation that was clearly, once again, approved by the House, when the President's veto was overturned by a huge majority, the vote was 319 to 100. It is here now for us to consider. Let me say, Mr. President, no one can argue that the current system is not broken because it is broken. Some of my colleagues raise some objections related to pleadings, the pleading requirements and some things of a very technical nature-- whether or not, for example, the second circuit opinion should be incorporated into this law--we are really getting into hair splitting. But I will tell you an area where no one can split hairs, no one can divide. The system as it presently exists is shameful--shameful-- horrendous. This system does not protect investors. This is the Full Employment Opportunity Act for a handful of lawyers. They are out there mining, prospecting for gold. They do not protect the average citizen. They do not protect the small fry investor. Let me tell you what the leading advocate of this system says, as it relates to the practice of law. He says, and I quote, ``I have the best practice in the world.'' Do you know why he says that? It is amazing. Does he say it because he is able to help people? Because he is able to bring comfort to them? Because he is able to help widows and orphans who are in need, who have been ripped off? That he has helped? That would be laudable. Does he say that because he is able to go after those who have robbed, who have pilfered, who have cheated? That would be laudable. ``I have the best practice in the world,'' he says. And why? ``Because I have no clients.'' That is a heck of an attitude. And that is what exists. And he is working, working. I wonder how many millions of dollars--millions, he, himself, has pumped into the system to buy ads to scare people, to tell them they are going to take their rights away. What we are looking to do is see to it that investors are protected, not a handful of attorneys, and one in particular, an attorney who says, ``I have the best practice in the world because I have no clients.'' His words. Why does he not come to the floor and explain that? Let him come out here and tell us how he can justify that kind of sentiment to the Senators who are going to be voting. Does he care about widows? Orphans? Defrauded people? He cares about his pocketbook. He hires a bunch of people to file claims--hires them, professional plaintiffs we call them. Some of them get as much as $25,000, not based upon what the injury was to them. How would you like to be this stockholder? You have 10 shares--that is what some of these guys own, 10 shares. They buy shares in every company. If the stock of the company goes down, they are recruited, the same handful of professional plaintiffs. You see, each one of them buys a share, a couple of shares in each company. If the share goes down, four or five of them sign up and this lawyer runs into court. He is now representing all the shareholders. In most of those cases, his shareholders do not own anything worth anything. You cannot even say one-tenth of 1 percent. So, when he says he represents no clients, he means that. Now, he is in there representing, supposedly, all of the shareholders. Our bill says you cannot have professional plaintiffs anymore. You cannot have the same bunch of thieves, because that is what they are--thieves for hire. And we permit them, today, under the law. They should be banned, outlawed, they are robber barons. Here is this lawyer who is pumping in hundreds and hundreds of thousands to protest this bill. I have not heard anybody talking about him. I have not seen anybody talking about how much money he has siphoned into various groups, money he has funneled to them so they can run their phony ads, how they fund these little groups who say, ``Oh, I am for the little guy.'' Little guy my foot. This millionaire lawyer is going around funding everybody. Why should he not? He makes tens of millions of dollars. Remember who his clients are--nobody. He is operating for himself. He is an entrepreneur--not my words, his words. ``I have the best practice in the world. I have no clients.'' It is a disgrace. We should change this system. And that is what this bill does. It protects, for the first time, people who own shares. It allows the pension fund managers who are managing hundreds of millions of dollars to have a say as to who will be selected to lead in the representation of investors when there is fraud and exploitation. Has there been exploitation? Absolutely. We have operators like Charles Keating, where people unjustly have enriched themselves at the expense of shareholders, stockholders, and pensioners. Of course, we must get them and put them in jail. This legislation makes it easier for the Securities and Exchange Commission to do exactly that, to bring lawsuits. We created greater responsibility on the part of auditors and accountants for the first time in this bill. But, my gosh, let us not say that we have a system that is a good system when it is out of control, when we permit legal larceny because somebody may have some economic power, so, therefore, we permit someone else to hold them up and say, ``If you have even the tiniest bit of negligence, we are going to hold you liable for whatever the loss is even if you were not part of a conspiracy because you could have done better.'' Our laws should not work on that basis. It should be worked on the basis of fairness, what is fair and what is right. It is really long overdue, the need to reform this kind of litigation from a money-making enterprise for a handful of lawyers--and it is a handful of lawyers--into a better means of recovery for those who have lost out. Curtailing abusive securities litigation while allowing investors to bring meritorious lawsuits will permit investors to have a system of redress that serves them, not one that entraps them. This bill serves investors and not a handful of lawyers who are proud to claim that they have the best practice because they have no clients. I yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1995. I wish to thank Senators Mack, Bond, Shelby, Bennett, and Domenici for their cosponsorship of this much needed legislation. This important measure would provide short-term extensions of housing programs which have expired. This bill does not create new housing policy, but is a stopgap measure which would allow existing programs to continue until October 1, 1996. Next year, the Banking Committee and its Housing Subcommittees will continue its evaluation of proposals for reorganization and elimination of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Omnibus housing legislation will be introduced in the Spring of 1996 which will reorganize, transfer or eliminate housing and community development programs. Some of the programs extended in this legislation will be reformed at that time. Modifications of these programs will be reserved until the Banking Committee has the opportunity for hearings and debate next year. The majority of the housing program extensions contained in this bill were passed by the Senate and House in the fiscal year 1996 Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill (H.R. 2099). If it were not for the recent veto of H.R. 2099, this legislation would not be necessary. However, the President's veto has placed our Nation's housing delivery system in serious jeopardy. It is imperative that we act to extend housing programs which would otherwise be suspended for an indefinite time period. This legislation would extend the following: Section 8 contract renewals; the Community Development Block Grant homeownership program; the Section 515 rural multifamily loan program; the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program; and the Multifamily Housing Risk-Sharing programs. I look forward to working with all Members of the Senate on a bipartisan basis to ensure the swift passage of this much needed legislation. I urge my colleagues to protect the needy recipients of these effective housing programs by supporting the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1995. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am pleased to support this bill and would like to submit this statement for the Record and 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 from 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. Just for an observation. Given the posture which the White House has taken and given the difficulty we have had in getting documents or information, given the dubious claim as it relates to lawyer-client privilege, is it not even harder for us, the committee, to accept this claim in light of the President's public statements as it relates to not raising privilege as a manner by which to protect documents? Does this impact on the Senator? This is a statement that comes from the President on March 8, 1994, when he is appointing Lloyd Cutler, and the question was, was he going to invoke Executive privilege or a lawyer-client relationship privilege, and he ends up with, as his answer, he says, ``It's hard for me to imagine circumstances in which that would be an appropriate thing for me to do.'' Does this square then, Ms. Sherburne raising this, with what the President has said, that he would not--it is hard for him to imagine raising that privilege?

Mr. D'AMATO. First of all, I want to thank the Senator from Connecticut for an observation that he has made. It is not easy when there are politically charged times and atmosphere. Admittedly, this is. We would be disingenuous at the least to say that it was not. So I admit that. Therefore, it takes even more courage for the Senator from Connecticut to recognize that the chairman--and, more importantly, that the committee--has really made every effort to avoid unnecessary confrontations, repeatedly, as it is related to documents that may have been in the possession of White House counsel, documents that may have been in the possession of Mr. Foster's counsel. We have set up procedures whereby we could have review of notes, where counsel will agree, or where the ranking member and the chairman would agree, so that we would not put matters into the public domain that had no relationship to this committee. So we have made these extraordinary efforts, and indeed it was on the basis of the two suggestions that the White House did concede. We indicated that we were quite content to get the notes. That still remains our position. We are not looking to invade any legitimate claim or to speak to the President's counsel. At least we are not as it relates to what he did, et cetera, or what advice he may have given to the President. We are not asking that. That is an important acknowledgment. I want to thank my colleague. Unfortunately, we can only speak for ourselves and we can do on the committee--Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, that is not the connotation that has come from those many associated with the White House or from the White House spokesperson. If you could read their statements, there is a failure to acknowledge the great and extraordinary lengths that over a period of time--not just with respect to this matter--we have engaged in, and certainly I would submit that we made every effort not to move it, but it has finally reached a point where I determined that it was necessary for us if we are going to resolve this and move to this point. So I make that observation.

Mr. D'AMATO. Will my colleague yield----

Mr. D'AMATO. There I have to say we have a disagreement, and we just do. I am not suggesting that there have not been many areas as it relates to documents that have come forth.

Mr. D'AMATO. That is right. I think the reason that is because we have made an extraordinary effort--``we'' being the committee--on a bipartisan basis both before, when my friend and colleague and the Democrats were in the majority, and since we have carried that further. So I say the committee has made the extraordinary effort in a bipartisan effort to interact and to do our job appropriately. But as it relates to the ``forthcoming,'' some of this may not be fair, but I will make an observation as it relates to witnesses and production of documents. Without going through the whole thing, I believe that it has not been an exercise of the same faith and bipartisanship that we have operated with in the committee.

Mr. D'AMATO. There are always examples. Look, some people can do these things better in terms of an appearance, and I do not want to, ourselves, to degenerate into who did more and less and who withheld and who did not in terms of all of the administrations that the Congress has dealt with. But I would say it is not the quantity of records that are produced but it is the quality. It is the fact that information that is important and goes to the essence of this investigation has to be produced in a timely manner without there being bits and pieces. Of course, some of that comes from witnesses themselves who may not be fair. And it would not be fair, for example, as it relates to Mrs. Thomases' testimony and also the production of records as a kind of a trickling. But the same could be said in other areas as it relates to the White House. But again we could disagree on that. And I respect my colleague's right to share a difference of opinion on it. Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. Why do we not say--we have been trying to work this back and forth, and certainly the Senator from West Virginia would be recognized, and if he needs an opportunity to come to the floor, and I make an observation I would yield immediately. Why do we not just keep it at that, and he will be recognized thereafter or as soon as he comes to the floor.