Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. It will not add anything now. We are going to try to work it out in fiscal year 1997.

Mr. HATCH. CLEAA is what we call carrier compliance under the Communications for Law Enforcement Assistance Act. It is to aid our law enforcement agencies to be able to do their work with regard to the new digital age, to be able, with court orders, to tap into digital phones so that they can follow criminals and organized crime.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I would note that carrier compliance under the Communications for Law Enforcement Assistance Act, which we call CLEAA, does not obligate Congress to appropriate any funds in excess of the amounts authorized. I emphasize that we are losing ground in a important area. We passed a bill last Congress that satisfied the various interests and constituencies involved in this important issue. Now we need to move forward with funding. In my view, the creation of this fund will not obligate my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to appropriate funds beyond what the Congress has already promised for this worthy purpose. Specifically, I am prepared to ask for a commitment between now and the time we take up the fiscal year 1997 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill that we will try to work this out. I hope that our staffs will establish a series of meetings, the purpose of which would be to reach a resolution of this matter by fiscal year 1997. It is important; with digital coming into being, we have got to be able to handle this aspect of law enforcement. And it is just going to have to be something we meet.

Mr. HATCH. If I heard the Senator correctly--and he is a friend and colleague--maybe I did not because I was listening and not listening. But it seemed to me that I recall him saying that Senator Dole was being accused of reneging.

Mr. HATCH. For a question, sure.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been listening to the distinguished Senator, and I have to say that some of the points he is making are good. Take them up with your Governor. We do not have to dictate from Washington what law enforcement officials have to do in the individual States and communities. If you do not like what the block grant moneys are used for in your State, then take it up with your Governor, because I will tell you one thing, you get the money. If you need more policemen, you can get them with that block grant money. If your Governor is not doing it, talk to him. I doubt----

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that has a simple but important purpose: To decrease the opportunity for terrorists to use a biological weapons. S. 1606 is cosponsored by Senators Feinstein, Thurmond, DeWine, Kohl, and Biden. I welcome this broad bipartisan support to respond quickly to this threat to the safety of Americans. It may surprise the American people to know that very dangerous, indeed deadly, organisms that cause diseases and death in human beings are available for purchase across State lines--not only by legitimate users, but by those who may use them with criminal intent. These organisms include the agents that cause the bubonic plague, anthrax, and other diseases. Perversely, the Federal Government has stricter regulations on the interstate transportation of biological agents causing disease in plants and animals than it has for the interstate transportation of agents that cause disease in humans. I favor regulatory reform and a reduction in the Government's overall regulatory burden on the American people. But that is not to say that the Federal Government has no legitimate regulatory role to play. The interstate transport of dangerous biological agents should be regulated. A recent Washington Post story reported that, in May 1995, an individual in Ohio faxed an order for three vials of the agent that causes the bubonic plague, a disease that killed one-third of the people of 14th century Europe, from the American Type Culture Collection [ATCC] in Maryland. The purchaser's letterhead appeared to be that of a laboratory. When the purchaser called ATCC to complain about slow delivery, the sales representative became concerned about whether the caller was someone who should have the plague agent. Ohio police, public officials, the FBI, and emergency workers ultimately scoured the purchaser's home. In the home they found nearly a dozen M-1 rifles, smoke grenades, blasting caps, and white separatist literature. The deadly micro- organisms were found in the glove compartment of the purchaser's automobile, still packed as shipped. The purchaser was prosecuted under wire and mail fraud statutes. But these charges would not have been possible if the purchaser had not sent a false statement on the letterhead of a nonexistent laboratory stating that the laboratory assumed responsibility for the shipment, as the seller had required. Unfortunately, both current laws and regulations are deficient in protecting Americans from the threat of the diversion of potentially dangerous biological agents. Gaps exist in current regulations that allow anyone to possess deadly biological agents, also referred to as human pathogens, and gaps exist in our criminal laws that make prosecution of people who attempt to obtain these agents for illegitimate purposes very difficult. I would like to take a moment to discuss these problems with you. Biological agents that cause disease in humans are available to several legitimate groups of users. First, small quantities of biological agents can be found in patient samples that are analyzed by clinical laboratories. Second, biological agents are used in the conduct of legitimate basic and clinical science research by scientists across the country, both within and outside of Government. Third, the Department of Defense has facilities to investigate biological agents, not as weapons, but to develop protective strategies in the event of military use of these agents during war. Currently, however, anyone else can also obtain these agents under Federal law. The only limits on who may purchase deadly biological agents are those imposed by the sellers themselves. There are many regulations in place with regard to the management of biological agents. These regulations come from many different governmental sources, including the CDC, the Postal Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Food and Drug Administration, and the Department of Transportation, among others. Unfortunately, the regulations were developed by these agencies with little or no apparent integration with other agencies, and with narrow purposes in mind. They were also developed in an era when domestic terrorism was not thought of as a real risk. In addition to the lack of coordination of efforts in the regulation of biological agents, existing regulations have not kept up with advancing science. For instance, biological agents are currently classified by CDC into four classes, based on several criteria. This ranges from class 1 organisms, which are considered to be nonharmful to humans under ordinary circumstances, to class 4 organisms, which are considered to be highly harmful to humans. In the manual ``Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories,''--hereafter Biosafety manual--CDC defines how legitimate laboratories should manage agents in these various classes. Again, these biohazard levels are designed for the protection of laboratory personnel and to prevent the accidental release of these agents into the environment. They do not take into account potential theft of these agents, or attempt to prevent misdirection of these agents to terrorists. In addition, the biosafety manual that establishes biohazard levels was last revised in 1993. It has not kept up with classification changes, or with the new strains of organisms that are constantly being described by microbiologists. Another example of how current regulation has not kept up with advancing scientific knowledge is the definition of what a biological agent actually is. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] defines a biological agent--human pathogen--as ``a viable micro- organism or its toxin which causes, or may cause, human disease'' [42 CFR 72]. This definition includes algae, bacteria, protozoa, fungi, and viruses. Unfortunately, threats now exist that we did not even know about when this definition was written. For instance, we now are experiencing a rapid growth in the field of gene technology. This technology now gives scientists the ability to deliberately or accidentally insert genes into micro-organisms that could broaden their host range, alter their route of disease transmission to humans, make them more toxic, or make them more difficult to treat. CDC has wide authority to regulate biological agents that pose a threat to human health, and could establish rules limiting who may possess these agents. Current regulations do not protect communities from intentional diversion of biological agents or the potential for these agents to be turned into weapons of mass destruction. This fact was recognized by CDC testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee last week. Dr. James M. Hughes, the Assistant Surgeon General and Director of the National Center for Infectious Diseases for the CDC testified: The current safeguards governing the acquisition and distribution, in the United States, of infectious and/or toxic agents are not comprehensive. There is no single set of consistent regulations but rather a number of different departmental regulations that address the shipping and handling of infectious agents. Taken together, these are effective at controlling the packaging, labeling, and transport of infectious materials, but they are not completely effective at controlling the possession and transfer of human infectious agents within the United States. Unfortunately, efforts by CDC and others have been slow. To date, there have been at least two multiagency task forces established to look at this issue. The first task force completed its work and made recommendations in July 1995. The second task force is well underway in the development of a regulatory system, but there does not appear to be a sufficient sense of urgency to get the job done. According to CDC's March 6 testimony before the Judiciary Committee, CDC does not plan to release proposed regulations for at least another 6 months. That means that it might be another year before final rules regulating who may possess dangerous biological agents are in place and enforceable. Why is that a problem? Current criminal law has gaps that prevent the prosecution of someone who obtains biological agents under false pretenses, or who possesses these agents with the intent to harm others. Under current Federal law, it is legal for anyone to possess biological agents--we must wait until they actually use it as a weapon before there is anything we can do about it. These gaps in current criminal law were discussed in detail during the hearings before the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Mark M. Richard, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, testified on behalf of the Department of Justice. Mr. Richard stated that the multiagency task force looking into this issue determined ``that there were no comprehensive Federal regulations governing the control of these dangerous organisms.'' My colleagues and I believe that current regulation and law have left us vulnerable to the potential use of biological agents as a terrorist weapon. We have not kept pace with science and technology, nor have we recognized that we live in a more dangerous world than we once did. We further believe that action must be taken sooner, rather than later, to avoid a potential disaster. This bill strikes a balance between protecting citizens from the threat that biological agents will be used as a weapon of domestic terrorism and placing over-burdensome demands on legitimate users of biological agents. The first title of our bill is directed at placing appropriate criminal provisions in place as requested by the Justice Department. Our provisions ensure that persons who develop or use biological organisms as a weapon will face severe and certain punishment. Our bill does this by amending sections 175 to 178 of Title 18, which relate to prohibitions with respect to biological weapons. As it currently is written, this provision makes it criminal to knowingly develop, produce, transfer, acquire, or possess any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon. It also prohibits knowingly assisting a foreign state or organization to do so. My bill will strengthen this provision to include an attempt, threat, and conspiracy prohibition within its scope. In addition, I broaden the definitions of biological agent, toxin, and vector in section 178 to cover biological products that can be engineered as a result of advances made in the field of biotechnology. The second statute in Title 18 that we amend is section 2332a. That provision currently makes it a criminal offense to use a weapon of mass destruction. Under current law, a ``weapon of mass destruction'' is defined to include ``any weapon involving a disease organism.'' 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2332a(b)(2)(C). This bill will expand that definition to include in its coverage the biological agents and toxins, as defined in section 178, including bioengineered products, that can be used as a weapon of mass destruction. In addition, we add a threat provision to this statute. The second title of our bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish interim regulations within 90 days and to issue proposed rules within 180 days that regulate the transfer within the United States of biological agents which have the potential to pose a severe threat to the public health and safety. I believe that the time limits required in our bill are reasonable and prudent, and allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services adequate time to develop appropriate regulations in this area. In fact, Dr. James Hughes testified last week that this process is well underway. The Judiciary Committee has been very concerned about the immediate potential for diversion of dangerous biological agents under the current law and regulation. In fact, at our hearing last week, we were disturbed to learn from agency representatives that no measures are in place to guard against reoccurrence of a situation like the Ohio case. For this reason, on March 6, Senators Feinstein, Specter, Kohl, and I sent a letter to the President urging that he: * * * direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to implement on a priority basis emergency procedures which will protect the American people against the threat of dangerous, diverted pathogenic materials. In addition, our new legislation includes a requirement for the establishment of interim rules while the long-term rules are developed. In closing, Mr. President, I believe that the threat for the intentional diversion of biological agents is real, and that these agents pose a threat for use as a weapon of domestic terrorism. We are submitting a comprehensive bill that fixes the gaps in criminal code and requires the rapid development and implementation of a regulatory program that will limit the people who may possess these materials to those who have a legitimate need to possess them. Obviously, time is of the essence, and I hope that the Senate will act as quickly as possible on the Biological Agents Enforcement Enhancement and Control Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of S. 1606 be inserted in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that has a simple but important purpose: To decrease the opportunity for terrorists to use a biological weapons. S. 1606 is cosponsored by Senators Feinstein, Thurmond, DeWine, Kohl, and Biden. I welcome this broad bipartisan support to respond quickly to this threat to the safety of Americans. It may surprise the American people to know that very dangerous, indeed deadly, organisms that cause diseases and death in human beings are available for purchase across State lines--not only by legitimate users, but by those who may use them with criminal intent. These organisms include the agents that cause the bubonic plague, anthrax, and other diseases. Perversely, the Federal Government has stricter regulations on the interstate transportation of biological agents causing disease in plants and animals than it has for the interstate transportation of agents that cause disease in humans. I favor regulatory reform and a reduction in the Government's overall regulatory burden on the American people. But that is not to say that the Federal Government has no legitimate regulatory role to play. The interstate transport of dangerous biological agents should be regulated. A recent Washington Post story reported that, in May 1995, an individual in Ohio faxed an order for three vials of the agent that causes the bubonic plague, a disease that killed one-third of the people of 14th century Europe, from the American Type Culture Collection [ATCC] in Maryland. The purchaser's letterhead appeared to be that of a laboratory. When the purchaser called ATCC to complain about slow delivery, the sales representative became concerned about whether the caller was someone who should have the plague agent. Ohio police, public officials, the FBI, and emergency workers ultimately scoured the purchaser's home. In the home they found nearly a dozen M-1 rifles, smoke grenades, blasting caps, and white separatist literature. The deadly micro- organisms were found in the glove compartment of the purchaser's automobile, still packed as shipped. The purchaser was prosecuted under wire and mail fraud statutes. But these charges would not have been possible if the purchaser had not sent a false statement on the letterhead of a nonexistent laboratory stating that the laboratory assumed responsibility for the shipment, as the seller had required. Unfortunately, both current laws and regulations are deficient in protecting Americans from the threat of the diversion of potentially dangerous biological agents. Gaps exist in current regulations that allow anyone to possess deadly biological agents, also referred to as human pathogens, and gaps exist in our criminal laws that make prosecution of people who attempt to obtain these agents for illegitimate purposes very difficult. I would like to take a moment to discuss these problems with you. Biological agents that cause disease in humans are available to several legitimate groups of users. First, small quantities of biological agents can be found in patient samples that are analyzed by clinical laboratories. Second, biological agents are used in the conduct of legitimate basic and clinical science research by scientists across the country, both within and outside of Government. Third, the Department of Defense has facilities to investigate biological agents, not as weapons, but to develop protective strategies in the event of military use of these agents during war. Currently, however, anyone else can also obtain these agents under Federal law. The only limits on who may purchase deadly biological agents are those imposed by the sellers themselves. There are many regulations in place with regard to the management of biological agents. These regulations come from many different governmental sources, including the CDC, the Postal Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Food and Drug Administration, and the Department of Transportation, among others. Unfortunately, the regulations were developed by these agencies with little or no apparent integration with other agencies, and with narrow purposes in mind. They were also developed in an era when domestic terrorism was not thought of as a real risk. In addition to the lack of coordination of efforts in the regulation of biological agents, existing regulations have not kept up with advancing science. For instance, biological agents are currently classified by CDC into four classes, based on several criteria. This ranges from class 1 organisms, which are considered to be nonharmful to humans under ordinary circumstances, to class 4 organisms, which are considered to be highly harmful to humans. In the manual ``Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories,''--hereafter Biosafety manual--CDC defines how legitimate laboratories should manage agents in these various classes. Again, these biohazard levels are designed for the protection of laboratory personnel and to prevent the accidental release of these agents into the environment. They do not take into account potential theft of these agents, or attempt to prevent misdirection of these agents to terrorists. In addition, the biosafety manual that establishes biohazard levels was last revised in 1993. It has not kept up with classification changes, or with the new strains of organisms that are constantly being described by microbiologists. Another example of how current regulation has not kept up with advancing scientific knowledge is the definition of what a biological agent actually is. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] defines a biological agent--human pathogen--as ``a viable micro- organism or its toxin which causes, or may cause, human disease'' [42 CFR 72]. This definition includes algae, bacteria, protozoa, fungi, and viruses. Unfortunately, threats now exist that we did not even know about when this definition was written. For instance, we now are experiencing a rapid growth in the field of gene technology. This technology now gives scientists the ability to deliberately or accidentally insert genes into micro-organisms that could broaden their host range, alter their route of disease transmission to humans, make them more toxic, or make them more difficult to treat. CDC has wide authority to regulate biological agents that pose a threat to human health, and could establish rules limiting who may possess these agents. Current regulations do not protect communities from intentional diversion of biological agents or the potential for these agents to be turned into weapons of mass destruction. This fact was recognized by CDC testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee last week. Dr. James M. Hughes, the Assistant Surgeon General and Director of the National Center for Infectious Diseases for the CDC testified: The current safeguards governing the acquisition and distribution, in the United States, of infectious and/or toxic agents are not comprehensive. There is no single set of consistent regulations but rather a number of different departmental regulations that address the shipping and handling of infectious agents. Taken together, these are effective at controlling the packaging, labeling, and transport of infectious materials, but they are not completely effective at controlling the possession and transfer of human infectious agents within the United States. Unfortunately, efforts by CDC and others have been slow. To date, there have been at least two multiagency task forces established to look at this issue. The first task force completed its work and made recommendations in July 1995. The second task force is well underway in the development of a regulatory system, but there does not appear to be a sufficient sense of urgency to get the job done. According to CDC's March 6 testimony before the Judiciary Committee, CDC does not plan to release proposed regulations for at least another 6 months. That means that it might be another year before final rules regulating who may possess dangerous biological agents are in place and enforceable. Why is that a problem? Current criminal law has gaps that prevent the prosecution of someone who obtains biological agents under false pretenses, or who possesses these agents with the intent to harm others. Under current Federal law, it is legal for anyone to possess biological agents--we must wait until they actually use it as a weapon before there is anything we can do about it. These gaps in current criminal law were discussed in detail during the hearings before the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Mark M. Richard, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, testified on behalf of the Department of Justice. Mr. Richard stated that the multiagency task force looking into this issue determined ``that there were no comprehensive Federal regulations governing the control of these dangerous organisms.'' My colleagues and I believe that current regulation and law have left us vulnerable to the potential use of biological agents as a terrorist weapon. We have not kept pace with science and technology, nor have we recognized that we live in a more dangerous world than we once did. We further believe that action must be taken sooner, rather than later, to avoid a potential disaster. This bill strikes a balance between protecting citizens from the threat that biological agents will be used as a weapon of domestic terrorism and placing over-burdensome demands on legitimate users of biological agents. The first title of our bill is directed at placing appropriate criminal provisions in place as requested by the Justice Department. Our provisions ensure that persons who develop or use biological organisms as a weapon will face severe and certain punishment. Our bill does this by amending sections 175 to 178 of Title 18, which relate to prohibitions with respect to biological weapons. As it currently is written, this provision makes it criminal to knowingly develop, produce, transfer, acquire, or possess any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon. It also prohibits knowingly assisting a foreign state or organization to do so. My bill will strengthen this provision to include an attempt, threat, and conspiracy prohibition within its scope. In addition, I broaden the definitions of biological agent, toxin, and vector in section 178 to cover biological products that can be engineered as a result of advances made in the field of biotechnology. The second statute in Title 18 that we amend is section 2332a. That provision currently makes it a criminal offense to use a weapon of mass destruction. Under current law, a ``weapon of mass destruction'' is defined to include ``any weapon involving a disease organism.'' 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2332a(b)(2)(C). This bill will expand that definition to include in its coverage the biological agents and toxins, as defined in section 178, including bioengineered products, that can be used as a weapon of mass destruction. In addition, we add a threat provision to this statute. The second title of our bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish interim regulations within 90 days and to issue proposed rules within 180 days that regulate the transfer within the United States of biological agents which have the potential to pose a severe threat to the public health and safety. I believe that the time limits required in our bill are reasonable and prudent, and allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services adequate time to develop appropriate regulations in this area. In fact, Dr. James Hughes testified last week that this process is well underway. The Judiciary Committee has been very concerned about the immediate potential for diversion of dangerous biological agents under the current law and regulation. In fact, at our hearing last week, we were disturbed to learn from agency representatives that no measures are in place to guard against reoccurrence of a situation like the Ohio case. For this reason, on March 6, Senators Feinstein, Specter, Kohl, and I sent a letter to the President urging that he: * * * direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to implement on a priority basis emergency procedures which will protect the American people against the threat of dangerous, diverted pathogenic materials. In addition, our new legislation includes a requirement for the establishment of interim rules while the long-term rules are developed. In closing, Mr. President, I believe that the threat for the intentional diversion of biological agents is real, and that these agents pose a threat for use as a weapon of domestic terrorism. We are submitting a comprehensive bill that fixes the gaps in criminal code and requires the rapid development and implementation of a regulatory program that will limit the people who may possess these materials to those who have a legitimate need to possess them. Obviously, time is of the essence, and I hope that the Senate will act as quickly as possible on the Biological Agents Enforcement Enhancement and Control Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of S. 1606 be inserted in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I join in the remarks of my distinguished friend and colleague from Vermont. Morton Gould, was a very, very important and fine person in my life, as well. He actually went out of his way to be friends with me. Although I believe Morton is a strong liberal Democrat, he went out of his way to show kindness to this conservative Republican Senator through many of the years as we have worked on patents, copyrights, and trademarks. As the Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, and I have known together, Morton Gould was not only one of the greatest musicians and writers who ever lived in this country, he was a person of immeasurable charm, kindness, diplomacy and ability--not just in music, but in working for the best interests of music. He literally became one of the stalwart people in the history of this country in the field of music. I want to personally pay my deep and utmost respects to him and to his family, wish them well, and express my sympathy to them. This was a very, very great man. He not only was great in one genre but he was great in all musical genres and deserves the respect and the remembrance of every American, many of whom do not even realize they benefited immensely from the beautiful music Morton Gould has written, and music he has collaborated with others to write. I would feel badly if I did not join with the distinguished Senator from Vermont in paying tribute to this wonderful man and the tremendous life he lived.

Mr. HATCH. I agree with my distinguished colleague. Morton Gould was a scintillating person to be around. Everybody who came in his presence was lifted one way or the other--not just by music but by his very fine personality and deep felt kindness he showed to people as a whole in this country. I want to express my deepest regard for him and my sympathy to his family, his associates and others who worked with him through the years. I thank my colleague for his kind remarks with regard to Morton Gould.

Mr. HATCH. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Senate recently confirmed Gen. Barry McCaffrey to be the Nation's new drug czar. He had to leave the military service to take this position. He has a tough job. I have high hopes for him and I compliment him for accepting this job and accepting this challenge, because he could have gone even higher in the military than he was, and it was pretty difficult to go much higher than Barry McCaffrey already was. He was willing to do this. His father told him he should do this in the best interests of our Nation and our young people. I have to say, during the last few years I have been critical of President Clinton's lack of leadership on the drug issue. On September 29, 1993, I called upon editorialists and columnists to draw attention to the drug issue and the need for Presidential leadership. At an October 20, 1993, Judiciary Committee hearing, I said, ``Thus far, this administration has been sending a terrible signal to our country: drug control is no longer a national priority.'' I quoted A.M. Rosenthal's observation that President Clinton's interest in fighting drugs can be summed up as, ``No leadership. No role. No alerting. No policy.'' I cited a University of Michigan study that even then showed that the decline in drug use among our Nation's young people, which began during the Reagan-Bush years, had virtually halted and marijuana and LSD use were even then on the rise, and that was back in 1993. I have repeated these warnings--often with support from Members on the other side of the aisle, especially the Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden. President Clinton has let the country down because of his failure to lead on the drug issue. Americans expect moral leadership from their President on an issue like this. We have gone from a Just Say No Program under President Reagan, to pleading with President Clinton to just say something. If the President is finally beginning to speak out more because it is a political year--I know he just held a conference on some aspects of this problem--then I say it is better late than never. I commend him for it. We need him to use the bully pulpit to speak out against drugs and to set an example for our youth of this Nation. Others agree with me. Last month, Diane Barry, communications director of Join Together, a national resource clearinghouse of more than 3,000 substance abuse organizations, said that, until recently, President Clinton ``hasn't used the bully pulpit to keep attention on this issue.'' Incidentally, after slashing the drug czar's office in 1993 from 147 positions to 25 positions, President Clinton, in this campaign year, now wishes to beef up that office. For whatever motivation, for whatever reason, I am pleased that he is willing to do so. I commend him for it. The February 16-18, 1996, USA Weekend, contains an article entitled, ``The New Pot Culture,'' by Monika Guttman, which notes that, ``Marijuana is back, more available and acceptable than before. * * * Today, marijuana is openly promoted at concerts, on CD's, even on clothes--sending teens a message of social acceptance that alarms many experts.'' The February 20, 1996, New York Times reports on a nationwide survey by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. That survey found that the use of marijuana by adolescents is ``bound[ing] back after years of decline * * *'' The survey noted, ``A profound reversal in adolescent drug trends is continuing with teen-agers more tolerant about marijuana and drugs in general. * * * Today's teens are less likely to consider drug use harmful and risky, more likely to believe that drug use is widespread and tolerated, and feel more pressure to try illegal drugs than teens did just 2 years ago.'' Mr. President, this is a disaster for our country. According to the New York Times article, the survey attributed this reversal ``in part to a glamorization of drugs in pop music, movies and television shows and to an absence of national and community leadership in discouraging experimentation with drugs.'' The Times article goes on: . . . specialists in drug use like James E. Burke, chairman of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, and Dr. Lloyd D. Johnston, a social psychologist at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, see a link between the increase in the use of marijuana by teen-agers and fewer warnings by politicians, the press, and the entertainment industry. Nancy Reagan's admonition to ``just say no,'' while ridiculed by her critics, presaged a fall in illegal drug use by adolescents in the 1980's, specialists say. Regrettably, as the USA Weekend article notes, after 13 years of decline, pot use is rising again. Between 1992 and 1994, marijuana use among teenagers nearly doubled. The percentage of high school seniors who think occasional pot smoking puts them at ``great risk'' declined from 40.6 percent in 1991 to only 25.6 percent in 1995. In fact, so many studies show teen pot use climbing rapidly that Steve Dnistrian of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America contends ``we face a possible epidemic.'' This is happening on President Clinton's watch. Drug use during the teen years, notes John Schowalter, clinical director of the Yale Child Study Center, . . . can have lifelong consequences. In the teen years, . . . social, educational and physical development is taking place at the fastest rate ever except for a child's first year. [Pot] will completely mess up their reality testing. Besides, regular pot use makes kids less interested in school, sports and other activities, adds Schowalter . . . The USA Weekend article continued: Why, then, after more than a decade of decreasing interest, are more teens toking? The most-cited explanation points to a generation of adults for whom pot was almost a rite of passage. Many parents ``had an experience with marijuana and don't consider it as serious as other drugs,'' says U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala. Susie Williams Manning, director of an adolescent alcohol and drug program in Lexington, S.C., says she often sees that dynamic at work with client families: ``I've had parents tell me they'd rather see their child smoke dope at home than go out and use alcohol.'' That is abominable. When I raised this very point a few weeks ago, and I suggested that the Clinton administration's lack of leadership in speaking out against this menace stems in part from the fact that some in the administration may have grown up experimenting with marijuana, it was suggested on behalf of the administration, perhaps facetiously, that this was a canard. Just listen to this: ``One of the things we learned in the '80s [when marijuana use declined] is [that] when all sectors of society speak in unison, it's heard,'' says Lloyd Johnston, author of the University of Michigan's respected annual teen drug study. ``Now we've seen an erosion of that single voice, and [teens get] either no voice in some quarters or conflicting voices in others.''--USA Weekend. We have to get parents talking to their children about this. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, and everyone should be impressing upon our young people not to damage themselves with drugs, marijuana or otherwise. If parents experimented with marijuana or other drugs in their youth and might feel hypocritical about telling their kids not to do so today, then, for your kids' sake, please get over it. Some experts advise that parents tell their children that if they had it to do over again, they wouldn't have used the stuff. Do not glamorize or wax nostalgic about your past drug use in front of your kids. Make it clear to your kids you do not want them to use pot or other drugs. Tell them about the other things in life--art, literature, sports, and so much else--that they should turn to for stimulation. For those adults who do not think marijuana use is as troublesome as I make it out to be, let me quote from the USA Weekend article again: Age is down. Users are starting younger. In the 1992 Adolescent Drug Survey, the average age of first-time users dropped to between 13 and 15, from 14-17 the year before. Treatment centers report 12- and 13-year-olds enrolling, formerly a rare event. The effects now are clear. Unlike the drug experimentation days of the 1960s and '70s, the effects pot use now have been studied extensively. Among the conclusions: Marijuana reduces coordination; slows reflexes; interferes with the ability to measure distance, speed and time; and disrupts concentration and short-term memory. According to Donald Tashkin at the UCLA Medical School, there are also cancer risks: A marijuana smoker is exposed to six times as many carcinogens as a tobacco smoker. Quantity is up. Kids today smoke larger amounts than their elders did, thanks to innovations such as ``blunts'': short cigars hollowed out and restuffed with pot or a pot-and- tobacco mix. Marijuana is now often laced with other drugs, as in ``primos,'' with cocaine and ``illies,'' with formaldehyde, making the smoker ill. Result: In 1994, 50 percent more 12- to 17-year-olds ended up in emergency rooms for smoking pot as in 1993. Potency is up. The pot teens smoke today is not their parents' cannabis. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration says the THC, or primary psychoactive chemical, of pot on the street has doubled in the past decade, thanks to sophisticated cloning and genetic manipulation . . . Sample review in High Times magazine: ``three hits and you're absolutely, totally and righteously screwed up for hours.'' And it's now understood that pot serves as a ``gateway'' drug. A 1994 study by the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse found 43 percent of teens who use pot by age 18 move on to cocaine. Everybody ought to read this article. The article notes that a variety of cultural factors have helped contribute to this very disturbing trend of increased teenage use of marijuana, a point I recently made on the Senate floor. One factor is permissive references to pot use on television, citing an example I used, the Roseanne and Dan Conner characters smoking pot in the bathroom on ``Roseanne''. Similar references in the movies contribute to the problem. No one is talking about censorship, but greater responsibility among producers, studios, directors, actors, and musicians, would be helpful. Merchandise and clothing with marijuana symbols are popular items nationwide in stores frequented by teens. ``Some people are influenced by images,'' [said one teenager] . . . ``You see it on TV all the time.'' Part of the problem may well be, on the one hand, a reaction to the materialism some teenagers may see around them, or to what appear to be limited prospects for their future that other teens feel confront them on the other. I do not have all the answers, but I do know political, religious, civic, sports, and entertainment figures must all speak out more vigorously, more vigorously than they are doing today. Our teenagers have to hear that there is more to life than the immediate gratification they may think they will get from pot or other drug use. They need to know what can really happen to a drug user, such as some of the things I mentioned earlier. With Elaine and I, and 6 children and 15 grandchildren, I know that it can be difficult to get across a message without sounding preachy. It is not so easy to tell a grade schooled or a junior high school youngster about life's vast possibilities and make it seem very real. We should not underestimate the influence we can have on our children, our nephews and nieces, and our grandchildren. We must talk to them. Moreover, the adults in our children's lives can do more than talk about it. We can take our kids to the local library and open up all of the worlds one can find there. We can read with our children when they are young. We can take them to sporting events or museums. We can show them local historical sites. We can interest them not only in our country's history, but in their own cultural heritage. We can help them get involved in sports, scouting, or other recreational activities. If religion is a part of your life, as I hope it is, perhaps you can help make it a part of your children's lives. Our children can be a part of something of interest to them that they must understand will be destroyed by the use of drugs. By helping our young people be involved in wholesome activities, the antidrug message becomes more than just plain talk. For those young people whose social or economic circumstances, or immediate prospects, cause them to doubt that their future is going to be worthwhile, we have to try very hard to reach them. This feeling of despair can afflict children of any race or ethnic background, and it can occur in an inner city, an affluent suburb, or a rural town. And I know that exhortations alone are not enough if people are trapped in violent, drug-infested neighborhoods. The kind of needed public and private policies, involving a wide range of community resources, to provide greater opportunity for youngsters are really beyond the scope of these remarks. But such policies are part of what we need to do as a society to combat the drug scourge. And, adults must lend a hand. But if I could speak to those of our young people who feel such despair, I would urge them to start with their most precious resource of all--themselves. I would say to them, Mr. President: your dignity as a human being, regardless of color, ethnicity, religion, or gender, is your birthright. And drugs are not going to help you go anywhere but down. Another point must be made to children and young adults. No one can take away your reputation, your good name--you can only give it away. Do not let the drug dealer take away your chances for success or your dignity. Do not let a friend sway you from what you know is right. Mr. President, we all must do more to help our young people avoid drug use. We must help show them the way. And we need strong moral leadership from our country's leaders. The very future of our country is at stake. We need strong examples from our country's sports figures, our country's business leaders, our country's entertainment leaders, and our country's political leaders--in fact, from leaders of every type and variety. And we need more of our religious institutions speaking out against the illicit use of illegal drugs in the best interests of our children and our young people today. But really it is society as a whole. So I hope that we will all continue to work harder. I intend to help General McCaffrey as much as I can to do his job, and I believe he will be a great drug czar. And I am going to give everything I can to assist him and help him to be able to accomplish that work in a way that will be beneficial to everybody in America. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to mention some of these things. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield, without losing my right to the floor, to the distinguished Senator from Vermont.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 6, 1996, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on the issue of competitive change in the electric power industry.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 6, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing to discuss telemarketing fraud against the elderly.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 6, 1996, in open session, to receive testimony on the 1996 ballistic missile defense update review.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, March 6, 1996, in open session, to receive testimony on the Department of Energy Environmental Management Program [EM], and on the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board [DNFSB] activities.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 6, 1996, at 10 a.m. in SD-226 to hold a hearing on ``Interstate Transportation of Human Pathogens.''

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on the Reauthorization of National Institutes of Health, during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 6, 1996, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Wednesday, March 6, for a joint hearing with the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee at 9:30 a.m., for a hearing on the Oversight of the Government Performance and Results Act.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 6, 1996, at 10 a.m., in room SR-428A, to mark up legislation pending in the committee.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 6, 1996, at 9 a.m., in SH-216, to hold an open hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have heard just about all the whining about Whitewater that I can stand. To be honest with you, if this was a Republican President, what has already been uncovered would be front- page headlines all over the country everyday. The fact is, it is a mess, and it does not take any brains for people to realize that if you set a short time limit, people are literally not going to comply with that time limit. We have had more than ample proof that that has been the case here-- more than ample proof. The fact of the matter is, we have had documents dribbling in at the last minute 2\1/2\ years since there has been a subpoena for them. There is no excuse for it. To hear our friends on the other side on this issue, it is outrageous what they are saying, and to act like this is not the Senate's business is also outrageous. There may not be anything more important for the Senate to do than to do its job in this area. Now, I have to say, I hope personally that the President and the First Lady do not have any difficulties in the end, but there are a lot of unanswered questions. There are a lot of things that any logically minded person or fairminded person would have to conclude create some difficulties for anybody, let alone the President and the First Lady. It is one thing to stand up and defend your party and your party's President--I have done it myself, and I do not have any problem with that at all; in fact, I commend my friends on the other side for doing it--but it is another thing to act like this is not important business or that we should not be doing this; that there are other things more important. Of course, there are other things that are also important, but not more important, and we should be doing all of them. And I agree with some of the criticism that has been given with regard to some of the things that need to be done. We have done a lot, but a lot has been vetoed. There is a lot tied up in conferences today. There is a lot that is not being done because of party warfare here. I have never seen more filibusters used in my whole 20 years in the Senate than I have seen in the last couple of years. Almost everything, even inconsequential bills. Why? Because they want to stop any momentum of the Contract With America. That is legitimate. I am not going to cry about that, but I do not believe you use filibusters on just about everything. To me that is wrong. So I rise today to express my support for the extension of the Special Committee on Whitewater and Related Matters. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I see it as my duty to defend the separation of powers and the constitutional prerogatives of the executive branch. These are important things, and I have to say, in some ways, I resent some of the comments that indicate these are not important things. I guess they are not important because it is a Democratic President who is being investigated at this time. Boy, they were sure important when Republican Presidents were in office. You could not stop anything from going on, and you had both Houses of Congress controlled by Democrats in most of those cases. We are talking about the separation of powers and the constitutional prerogatives of the executive branch. After giving this issue careful thought, however, I have decided that the special committee's investigation into Whitewater must continue. This issue transcends the claims of partisanship and goes to the very constitutional authority of Congress to investigate wrongdoing at the highest levels of Government. Congress has the constitutional obligation to see that public officials have not misused their office, and we have a duty to bring these matters to the public eye so that the American people can be confident that their Government is operated in a fair, just, and honest way. We must provide the special committee with more time in order to demonstrate that delaying tactics of a White House, whether Democrat or Republican, will not be permitted to frustrate a legitimate congressional investigation. For example, I was dismayed that we received more notes from the White House relevant to this investigation just last week. Now, I am happy that we received these notes--more notes--that are responsive to the special committee's requests. I am just concerned about the delay in the response. Last Thursday, the special committee's resolution expired. In light of the fact that information keeps trickling out of the White House, I can see no other way than to extend the committee's investigation until the most pressing questions are answered. We cannot be expected to wrap up our investigation when we are still receiving important information from the White House and awaiting the availability of key Arkansas witnesses currently involved in related court proceedings in that State. The special committee must be given time to conduct a fair, careful and thorough investigation so that the Congress can be confident that all of the issues surrounding the Whitewater scandal have been fully aired and examined. Some have requested that a time limit be put on the extension of the Whitewater committee. That might not be a bad idea under certain circumstances. Unfortunately, however, we cannot agree to any time limits until the criminal trials have been completed. Some have thought that the reason the Democrats have suggested 5 weeks is because that is how long the criminal trials will take. At that point, it will be over and you cannot get some of the witnesses who really have to come before the committee. Many of the witnesses who will testify in the criminal trials may also need to come before the Whitewater committee. We cannot agree to any time limit that would preclude the Whitewater committee from completing its work or we will get into the same debate 5 weeks from now. If we set that time limit, I guarantee you we will be in this same debate 5 weeks from now because there will be further delays, further obfuscation, further finding of documents at the last minute. At least that has been the situation up to now. As long as doubt concerning Whitewater continues, the President and the First Lady will not enjoy the full trust of the American people. This scandal is not just bad politics, it is bad for the future of our Nation. I believe we do need more time to further examine whether White House officials attempted to interfere improperly with the Justice Department's investigation. During January 1994, Mr. Mark Gearan, then director of communications at the White House, took detailed notes of a series of meetings on Whitewater with senior White House personnel. I am concerned that, despite White House denials, attempts were made both to influence the appointment of a special prosecutor or independent counsel and to affect the testimony of some of the key witnesses in that case. I am particularly concerned that attempts were made to influence the appointment of an independent counsel. We have only begun efforts, the needed efforts to investigate these problems. Mr. Gearan's notes indicate several White House officials, including Mr. Ickes, argued that an independent counsel should not be sought. Now, I can see that. But from what I am able to glean from these notes, I presume the reason White House officials opposed an independent counsel's appointment was that an independent counsel could not be ``controlled.'' That is what the notes say. For example, in the January 5 meeting, Mr. Gearan's notes record Bernie Nussbaum as saying that the independent counsel is ``subject to no control.'' During the January 7 meeting, Mr. Gearan's notes say, ``We cannot affect the scope of the prosecutor.'' I think a fair reading of these statements is that the high-level White House officials were concerned about the appointment of an independent counsel, because they could not exercise control over his or her investigation. According to Mr. Gearan's notes, Mr. Ickes stated that neither the President nor the staff could speak to the First Lady about appointing a special counsel. This suggests to me that the First Lady was making the final decision about whether a special counsel should be appointed. It certainly is not proper for the possible subject of an investigation to have input as to whether or not a special counsel should be appointed. We need more time to study this very worrisome possibility. Mr. Gearan's notes of January 8 indicate that Mr. Ickes said that Mr. Kendall, the Clintons' personal lawyer, attempted to talk to Alan Carver who was supervising Donald McKay's investigation into Whitewater at the time. In fact, according to Mr. Gearan's notes, Mr. Ickes called Mr. Carver a ``bad'' guy, a guy who would not talk to Mr. Kendall without FBI agents present. Then, according to Gearan's notes: Mr. Ickes went so far as to say, ``That guy is f. . . us blue.'' Was the Department of Justice getting too close to the truth? How could Mr. Carver and Mr. Mackay be a problem if they were only doing their jobs to carefully investigate Whitewater? During the same time as the White House meetings, Attorney General Janet Reno was considering whether to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Whitewater. At that time, the independent counsel statute had lapsed and the Attorney General chose Robert Fiske on January 20 to be her special prosecutor. Unlike the independent counsel, the special prosecutor was under the control of the Justice Department and, ultimately, the President. Less than 2 weeks after these White House meetings, during which time the benefit of an apathetic special counsel was discussed at length, Janet Reno chose Robert Fiske as the special prosecutor, a man who many consider had failed to investigate fully the events surrounding Whitewater. I read some of his depositions. They were not detailed. They were not carefully done. I know Mr. Fiske. I have a high regard for him as an attorney, but in this particular matter I do not think he was doing the job that needed to be done. We have learned that Webster Hubbell kept Whitewater documents of the Rose Law Firm in his basement after the election. Some of these may have been in Vince Foster's office when he died. We need to investigate whether at the time of these White House meetings Mr. Hubbell continued to have the documents in his basement while serving as an Associate Attorney General of the United States and was perhaps privy to discussions in the Justice Department concerning whether to appoint an independent counsel. Another area that disturbs me is the effort to contact Ms. Beverly Bassett Schaffer. According to evidence collected to date, Mr. Ickes was deeply concerned about Ms. Schaffer's testimony. She had been the acting securities commissioner. He wanted a checkered story to make sure it would support President and Mrs. Clinton's version of the events surrounding Whitewater. Mr. Ickes even said he could not send any prominent members of the White House to speak with her because the press, or others, might get wind of what was going on. Mr. Ickes said that if these steps were not taken, ``We are done.'' I hate to read anything sinister into that statement, but an argument could be made that Mr. Ickes was worried that if he could not successfully manipulate Ms. Schaffer's testimony, serious consequences could result. I am gravely concerned about any discussion by White House officials to influence the workings of the Justice Department, particularly when it conducts ongoing criminal investigations into the White House. Earlier, when I questioned Ms. Sherburne and Mr. Gearan about the notes, I became concerned that officials at the White House were trying to influence the story of an important witness--Ms. Schaffer--in this investigation. Ms. Sherburne agreed the notes could be read that way. That was in response to my questions--that, yes, they could be read that way. The possibility that White House officials might attempt to influence or tamper with the ongoing actions of the President and his aides raises questions about the integrity and fairness of the administration of justice in our Nation. I cannot believe that anybody in good conscience could oppose a continuation of this committee's investigation until we start getting answers to the many troubling questions that have been raised. Putting aside these problems, there are many other unanswered questions that have been raised by the committee's investigation that would require further investigation. Now, this is my Whitewater top 10 questions list. It is, by no means, exhaustive. It is just 10 I think ought to be answered. First: How did the First Lady's billing records from the Rose Law Firm mysteriously appear in the personal quarters of the White House long after they had been subpoenaed? Second: Who brought Madison Guaranty into the Rose Law Firm as a client, and who had primary responsibility for that account? Third: Did the First Lady attempt to benefit from her relationship with her husband, then-Governor Clinton, in representing Madison Guaranty before Arkansas regulators, including Beverly Bassett Schaffer, who was the Arkansas State Securities Commissioner? Fourth: Did the First Lady attempt to persuade Beverly Bassett Schaffer to approve a highly unusual deal that would have allowed Madison to stay afloat longer than it did? Fifth: What was the First Lady's role in the Castle Grande deal? Did she assist Madison in what the RTC concluded was a sham transaction to conceal Madison's true ownership interest in the problem? Sixth: Have the President and the First Lady's lawyers attempted to impede the investigations into Whitewater by the special prosecutor and the Senate special committee? Seventh: Did the First Lady, her aides, or Bernard Nussbaum prevent Justice Department investigators from searching Vincent Foster's office after his death? Eighth: Was there a effort to interfere with the investigation of Whitewater, as suggested by Mr. Gearan's notes? Ninth: Who ordered the firing of Billy Dale in the White House travel office? What was their motive? Was there some connection with Whitewater? Was there some connection with something that was inappropriate or wrong? Certainly, there appears to be, and that needs to be cleared up. I hope there was nothing wrong, but there appears to be so. Tenth: Were Rose Law Firm records purposely removed from the firm and/or destroyed? Before these hearings began, the American public had been told there had been full disclosure. We now know that this is not true. Before these hearings began, the American people were told Hillary Clinton did not work on Whitewater or Castle Grande. We now know that is not true. On Whitewater, she billed 53 hours, had 68 telephone conversations, and 33 conferences. You could go on and on. On Castle Grande, she billed more than any other partner in the law firm, as I understand it. I think it was 14\1/2\ hours. She had a number of conversations with Seth Ward, who was used as a straw man to circumvent the law in what regulators have called a sham transaction. Before these hearings began, the American public had been told that there had been full disclosure. It is clear there had not been. We know that is not true. It is only because of these hearings that we know that. These hearings have been very important, regardless of the outcome. It is our constitutional responsibility to follow through and conclude them in a satisfactory, fair, and decent manner. Before these hearings began, as I said, the American people were told Hillary Clinton did not work on the Whitewater and Castle Grande cases. We now know that is not true. We know that. The hearings proved it. Before these hearings began, we were told there was no interference with the Justice Department's investigation into Vince Foster's death. We now know, as a result of these hearings, that is not true. You could go on and on. Given this history of deception, delay, and obfuscation, should the Senate take the administration's word on these matters? To permit us to close the book on this scandal, the Senate must approve the extension of the Whitewater committee operations. The American people demand no less from their elected officials. The counsel is pursuing the criminal aspects of this case, and it is important that the Congress fulfill its constitutional duty to conduct oversight at the executive branch and inform the American people of its findings. We have had suggestions that we ought to take 5 weeks and work 8 to 10 hours a day and we will solve this problem. I have to tell you that since this committee has been established, committee counsel has been working a lot more than 10 hours a day every day. You cannot have hearings every day because it takes time to do the depositions and prepare, get documents together and go through them, and it takes time to put them together in a cohesive way. To prepare the questions, it takes time for each Senator. These hearings have to be planned and done in a reasonable, orderly, credible way. I also can guarantee you that the minority's attorneys have been working full time on these matters because they are serious, because there are thousands of documents, because there are questions that are unanswered, because we have to get to the bottom of this. Again, I will repeat that I like President and Mrs. Clinton. I have worked rather closely with the President for these last 2 years. I do not think anybody in this body can deny that. I have tried to help him with judges and other appointments, and on legislation, and I think he would be the first to acknowledge that. I have been very friendly to the First Lady. I hope there is nothing that hurts either of them here. But it would hurt the Congress, the Senate, if we, once we have this charge, do not follow through and bring it to a conclusion in a fair, just, and orderly way. We are clearly not at a conclusion now, not with getting documents as late as last week, even after the commission of this special committee has expired. So this is important stuff, and I know that my colleagues are tired of it on the other side. I do not blame them. I got tired of Iran- Contra and a number of issues that were, in many respects, worked to death. This is something that until it is resolved and resolved in a fair, just, and reasonable way, I think you cannot count on the President and First Lady having the full trust and confidence of the American people. Hopefully, when this is all over, they can. If they cannot, it is another matter. But at least we ought to get this thing put to bed and put to bed right. I agree with the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee, you cannot put a 5-week delay on it. You do have to put up enough money to resolve these matters, to be able to investigate them fully. There are just countless documents, countless witnesses in this matter, and we have not even gotten into the hard-core issues of this matter. That cannot be done until the trial is over, which is estimated to take 5 or 6 weeks. I know that my colleagues are not just simply choosing that timeframe so that they can avoid another set of hearings or mess up this investigation. On the other hand, I think they have to acknowledge that 5 weeks is not enough time and that, if you do put a time limit on it, there is a natural propensity on the part of those who have something to hide to make sure it is hidden until after it is too late to bring it up. Frankly, I do not think we should do that. We owe it to the Senate, we owe it to the Constitution, we owe it to our own conscience to do it in the right way. I want the hearings to be fair. I think thus far they have been. I want to commend the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator D'Amato. Contrary to what many on the opposite side thought before these hearings began, I think he has conducted them in a fair and reasonable manner. I also want to compliment the minority leader on the committee, Senator Sarbanes. He is one of the more thoughtful, intelligent people in this body. We came to the Senate together. I have tremendous respect for him. I think he has conducted himself in the most exemplary of ways, and I have respect and admiration for the way he has done so. I think both of them have done a very good job. I think other members of the committee have done a good job as well. It is apparent that it takes time. It is apparent it is a painful experience for all to go through, including those on the committee. It means reading thousands of documents and trying to stay up with a very convoluted set of circumstances here that are very difficult for anyone. We simply have to go forward. I do not think it is right to delay this any longer. I think literally we should go forward. There should not be a filibuster on this matter. In fact, of all things, I think there should be no filibuster on this motion to extend the time of the committee. Truthfully, I think the Rules Committee needs to get the resolution out and we need to vote on it, up or down, and let the chips fall where they may and go about doing our business in the best, most ethical, reasonable, and just way we possibly can. In the meantime, I will be pushing to extend this committee because I think it is the right thing to do. I have raised a lot of questions that literally have not been answered as of this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I was on Iran-Contra Committee. I have to admit it was a huge committee with a huge budget and all kinds of lawyers, and it had to be--I do not know how many people were on that committee, but it was both the House and the Senate. And every effort was put forth. And I have to say the White House cooperated fully. Outside of the documents that were shredded by Oliver North and his secretary, which were fully explained, there was complete cooperation. There was not obfuscation. There was not withholding of documents. There was not withholding of witnesses. There were not notes indicating that there were these type of things going on in the White House. We have had to fight for everything we got here. I do not think anybody who watches those hearings seriously would conclude other than that there has been a lot of delay and a lot of obfuscation, a lot of failure to comply, a lot of failure to work with the committee. There has been an effort to work with the committee, too. I do not want to fail to give people respect who have legitimately come forth. But this committee was created just 9 months ago on May 17, 1995. The Iran-Contra investigation lasted for more than a year. The Joint Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition was established on January 6, 1987. The committee conducted hearings until August 1987. The committee was extended twice in 1987, from August to October and then from October to November. And the committee filed its report on November 17, 1987. On December 10, 1987, the House voted to extend its operation to March 1, 1988. There is an important thing we ought to note here. The special committee is not really seeking a ``extension.'' That is, Resolution 120 will not expire and the committee will not cease to exist on March 1, 1987, if the new resolution is not adopted. All that the committee is asking for is additional funding so that the investigators and the attorneys can be paid. By historical standards the Whitewater committee has not been an especially long-lived investigatory committee. The Truman Committee, also known as the Special Committee To Investigate the National Defense Program, was in existence for 8 years, from 1941 to 1948. During that time the committee held 432 hearings and examined 1,798 witnesses; I guess millions of documents. The Joint Select Committee on the Conduct of the War, the Civil War that is, lasted for 3\1/2\ years, from 1861 to 1864, and the committee convened 272 times. The Watergate Committee, also known as the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activity, was formed on February 7, 1973, and issued its final report on June 27, 1974. The Senate spent 11 months investigating the so-called October Surprise. A subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations appointed a special counsel on October 16, 1991. The special counsel's report was issued on November 19, 1992. The allegations at issue in the October Surprise investigation were completely spurious--completely. Everybody acknowledges that today. Yet it took 11 months. I hope they are here, too, but it does not look that way. At least with what we have done so far, there are too many unanswered questions that have to be answered. With respect to the central allegation on the October Surprise matter, that the Reagan campaign made a deal with the Khomeini regime to delay the release of the hostages until after the 1980 Presidential election, the special counsel concluded that: There is not sufficient credible evidence to support this allegation. The primary sources for this allegation have proven wholly unreliable. Their claims regarding alleged secret meetings are riddled with inconsistencies and have been contradicted by irrefutable documentary evidence as well as the testimony of vastly more credible witnesses. Now, let me just say the $30 million figure is not the amount of money this committee has spent. The special committee thus far has spent $950,000. The special committee has been very productive. This committee has deposed 221 witnesses, had 41 hearing days and heard the testimony of 121 witnesses, with a staff of around 20. That is pretty productive. That does not indicate any wasting of time. I commend both the chairman and the ranking member for having worked so hard along with other members of the committee. But what this committee has done compares favorably with the Iran-Contra Committee which conducted 250 depositions and 250 interviews, had 40 days of hearings, and heard the testimony of 28 witnesses. And they had a staff of 100. What would be a waste of money would be to end the investigation now just when the investigation is starting to heat up and before the committee has received the White House e-mail and has fully investigated the withholding of the billing records. Senator Byrd said the following during the Iran-Contra debate in response to a suggestion that the investigation would not be worth its costs. Senator Byrd said: May I say, if we are going to talk in terms of cost, this is the 200th anniversary of the Constitution of the United States, and there is no price tag on a constitutional system which has been around for 200 years and which has worked very well, and which will continue to work very well. Under our constitutional system, there is a doctrine that we speak of as checks and balances, and that is precisely what is being done here. The Congress has a constitutional responsibility of oversight, a constitutional responsibility of informing the people, a constitutional responsibility of legislating. Now before it can legislate it has to have hearings in order to conduct its oversight responsibilities. I am saying this for the Record. I am not telling the Senator anything he does not know. But its oversight responsibilities and its informing responsibilities which Woodrow Wilson said were as important if not more important than legislative responsibilities which are done mostly by committees. A problem has developed which we will not go into but which everybody has been reading about for quite some time, and it is incumbent upon all of us to try to see what the facts are. There is no price tag on that constitutional system. If there is one thing we can do in this 200th year of the writing of the Constitution it would be to reassure the faith of the American people in that constitutional and political system, and one way of doing it is to find out about all of these things that we have been hearing. And the way to do it is to go at it, put our hand at the plow and develop the facts. Senator Byrd said that on January 6, 1987. I agree with Senator Byrd. We are not at the end of these hearings. We are not at the end of this investigation. We are still receiving documents at the last minute. We have not had the cooperation that I think they had in Iran- Contra and in other hearings. And, frankly, there is no reason not to. We just plain ought to finish these and carry out our constitutional responsibility to the best of our ability to do so. I hope that we can continue to do this. I think it is unseemly to deny the committee investigators and attorneys, the necessary requisite funds to be able to continue to do so, and to insist that 5 weeks is going to be adequate to do this job. I do not think that it will be; not the way we have been treated, sometimes getting documents that are 2 years old and longer. I might say that the committee has been successful, too. Again, I will make this point. If this was a Republican President all hell would be breaking loose right now with what this committee has already uncovered. There is not misgiving about that. Everybody in America knows that. There is a double standard around here. There are some dramatic things that have been brought out. I think the committee has been successful. But it happens to be a Republican Senate investigation under a Democratic President and First Lady. Again, I will just say that I hope there is nothing wrong. I hope there is no problem with either of them. I am hoping that is the case. But there are a lot of things that look terrible here. I think it is simply not true to say that nothing has been found in the Whitewater investigation in general, or this committee in particular. One measure of what has been found is the number of Whitewater related indictments and convictions that have been obtained. Here are some of the numbers. Nine people have been convicted and seven are currently under indictment. And the indictments are still coming. The two owners of the Perry County Bank were indicted just last week. Further, three senior officials--Bernie Nussbaum, Roger Altman, and Jean Hanson were forced to resign over their handling of Whitewater matters. Rightly or wrongly they had to resign. Some of what the committee has learned include the following: A Secret Service agent saw Maggie Williams, the First Lady's chief of staff, abscond with numerous files from Vincent Foster's office the night of his death. She denies that. But what reason would the Secret Service agent have to lie? You might ask that question the other way. Would Maggie Williams have any reason not to tell the truth? I think subsequent facts kind of indicate otherwise. For instance, there was a flurry of early morning phone calls between the First Lady, Maggie Williams, her chief of staff, and Susan Thomases, her good, smart, sharp attorney friend on July 27, 1993. That is the First Lady's good, sharp attorney friend. That same day, on July 27, 1993, Bernie Nussbaum reneged on a deal he had agreed to the day before to let career DOJ, Department of Justice attorneys review the documents in Vince Foster's office. Why did he do that after that short flurry of phone calls that all of a sudden neither Susan Thomases nor Maggie Williams can really explain because their memories had suddenly become short? Notes taken during the November 35, 1993 meeting between White House officials and the Clinton's personal lawyers contain a reference to ``vacuum Rose Law files.'' While at the Rose Law Firm, Mrs. Clinton had a dozen or more conferences with Seth Ward in connection with the Castle Grande matter. That land deal which banking regulators have termed a sham cost the taxpayers $4 million. I can tell you of a case in Utah where the president of the bank saved the bank. Throughout, the 100 percent stockholding owner of the bank bounced his checks and saved the bank, and yet he and the board of directors had to go through a tremendous and ill-advised litigation that cost them well over $1 million in legal fees before the Government finally admitted that the bank had broken even, and that they really had saved the bank and not caused the bank the problem. This was necessary in order to just get it off their backs. You have a case of $4 million actually lost through what was considered a sham transaction, a fraud. And the taxpayers are stuck with it. Mrs. Clinton also prepared an option agreement that was intended to be the way that Seth Ward would be compensated for acting as a straw man in this sham transaction called the Castle Grande transaction. Maybe none of this amounts to a smoking gun. But it is instructive to remember what Senator Sarbanes said in connection with the Iran-Contra investigation upon which he also sat. He said that requiring a smoking gun ``sets a standard of certainty that is very rare that we are going to reach.'' To make a long story short, there is a lot of smoke here. There are a lot of unanswered questions. There has been a lot of obfuscation. There has been a lot of selective memory loss. There has been a lot of delays in giving documents. There has been a lot of ignoring subpoenas. And there have been a lot of explanations that just do not make sense in light of the notes and what is on those notes--like ``vacuum the Rose Law Firm files'' being treated as though they ought to clean them up. Let me tell you. There is a lot here. There is a lot here, and I do not think we should ignore it even though we should make every effort to be just and fair to everybody concerned. I certainly will make every effort to do that and will insist that everybody else do likewise. I yield the floor. Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

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