David Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair for recognizing me, and I also thank the distinguished Senator from Utah, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for allowing me to make a few comments and observations, plus ask a couple of questions. First, the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. President, just said that the proposal to appropriate or to allocate some $487,000 to pay the legal fees for Mr. Billy Dale is to right a wrong. I think this body wants to right a wrong, and I think this body, if there has been a wrong committed in the Billy Dale matter, will support the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. However, before we do that, I think we need to really ask ourselves what we are doing here. First, to right this wrong, as the distinguished chairman has mentioned, we are going to be overlooking a very, very large number of individuals who have been wronged. Now, are we going to apply this same test and this same standard, are we then going to try to right this wrong for many, many people who have come to testify before the Special Watergate Committee, who have testified before Kenneth Starr's grand jury and before the trial in Little Rock, AR? What sort of a standard are we going to adopt for these individuals? For example, Maggie Williams is the secretary to Mrs. Clinton at the White House. Today, she is not a target. Today, she does not expect, I assume, to be indicted. Today, there is no one who stands at the gate with shackles or leg irons to take Maggie Williams off to jail, but today she owes over $200,000 in legal bills. This is not someone who makes a great sum of money, relatively speaking, Mr. President. This is someone who, basically, was doing her job as she saw fit, along with many other people who are involved in the White House and who have been called before the special committee and before Mr. Starr. We have had 45 hearings and 5 public meetings. This committee has met 250 hours. The committee has heard testimony from 123 individuals. They have taken depositions from 213 individuals. Some of these witnesses have testified and have been deposed two and three times. These numbers do not include the hundreds of other citizens who have been deposed and appeared as witnesses before committees in the House of Representatives, the independent counsel, the RTC, and the FDIC. Mr. President, I ask my friend from Utah, is there not some degree of sentiment or concern for these individuals? Perhaps I can pose that question to my friend.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I think it is time to set the record straight. The distinguished Senator from Utah has stated if Billy Dale, who has been indicted and now we are about to pay his attorney's fees-- if there is an indictment by the special counsel, by Kenneth Starr, or any other special counsel, if that indictment ever comes forth, then the attorney's fees are not automatically paid, they are not reimbursed if there is an indictment by the special counsel. We are carving out a very special, new area here, Mr. President, and I think we ought to all know what we are doing.

Mr. PRYOR. I think once again, Mr. President, we are setting out Mr. Dale as a very special individual. This is special legislation to benefit him. Others do not have the benefit of this special legislation. I am simply saying that if we are going to do this for one, I do not understand why we do not do it for others.

Mr. PRYOR. Once again, I think, Mr. President, we need to set the record straight. The White House did not prosecute Mr. Dale. The White House did not prosecute Mr. Dale. The Justice Department prosecuted Mr. Dale. He was indicted by a grand jury. He was acquitted. Maybe that is good. I am not here to argue that. I may very well support this, but what I would say----

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Utah made an impassioned plea for justice, an impassioned plea to, so-called, right a wrong. I hope the Senator from Utah will apply that same passionate plea for justice to my sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I hope that the Senator from Utah will allow me, this Senator from Arkansas, to call up amendment No. 3959 to this Travelgate proposal and allow a sense-of- the-Senate resolution to go forth. If I might ask the distinguished Senator, has the Senator filled up the tree or is an amendment possible?

Mr. PRYOR. Is there any reason why we cannot amend this bill? I want to know that.

Mr. PRYOR. I am glad the Senator asks. Sense of the Senate for the reimbursement to certain individuals for legal expenses relating to the Whitewater Development Corporation investigation. Findings. The Senate finds that-- (1) The Senate Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters . . . has required depositions from 213 individuals and testimony before the committee from 123 individuals; (2) many public servants and other citizens have incurred considerable legal expenses responding to requests of the Committee; (3) many of these public servants and other citizens were not involved with the Whitewater Development Corporation or related matters under investigation; And here, I say to my friend: (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that-- (1) a legal expense fund should be established to compensate individuals for legal expenses incurred responding to requests by the Committee; and [finally] (2) only those individuals who have not been named, targeted, or convicted in the investigation of the Independent Counsel relating to the Whitewater Development Corporation should be eligible for reimbursement from the fund. If they are indicted, they do not get any compensation for their attorneys. If they are not, if they are not named, if they are not a target--how in the world can we keep bringing these people up here, arraigning them before the committee, making them pay their own expenses, making them absorb all these legal fees? How can we do it? I hope you will allow me to introduce and present this sense-of-the- Senate resolution.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I think there is another injustice here, and that injustice is that we are bringing this measure to the floor of the Senate and we are being precluded from offering any amendments to it whatever. We cannot offer any amendments to it. Now, I wonder how defensible that position is by the Senator from Utah, when all that I have here is a simple sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It does not require anything. It does not appropriate one dime. It merely says that a legal defense fund should be established to compensate individuals for legal expenses incurred, responding to requests by the committee, and only those individuals who have not been named, targeted, or convicted in the investigation of the independent counsel related to the Whitewater Development Corp. should be eligible for reimbursement from the fund. Does the Senator from Utah say that he is going to preclude me from offering this amendment, this simple sense-of-the-Senate resolution?

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, there is not one Member on this side of the aisle of the U.S. Senate trying to slow this bill down. We are not trying to slow this bill down. We are trying to offer a simple sense- of-the-Senate resolution. We have been locked out. We are not going to be able to offer any amendments to this. Now, another amendment that could slow this bill down--and I assume the Senator from Utah is not going to let this Senator offer that amendment, talking about ``to right a wrong''--and that is to deal with the GATT loophole, the GATT loophole as it relates to Glaxo and Zantac, forcing the seniors of America, forcing the consumers of America and the veterans of America to pay an unreasonable fee for Zantac and other drugs, $5 million a day--$5 million a day. I do not see the Senator up here saying we have to right that wrong.

Mr. PRYOR. Would you permit me to offer an amendment relative to righting that wrong, to protect the consumers from these unfair drug prices?

Mr. PRYOR. I want to talk about it.

Mr. PRYOR. We are not trying to derail anything.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I hope my colleague will allow me to say something. No one knows more than the distinguished Senator from Utah that, under some conditions, relevancy does not matter as to an amendment in the Senate. It does in the House but not in Senate. So set that record straight. Second, the Senator has mentioned that the Judiciary Committee on Thursday, 10 to 7, passed out the solution to the Glaxo amendment. Mr. President, what this did, this particular measure, I say in all respect to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Judiciary Committee's proposal to correct the Glaxo issue made matters worse for the generic drug companies by adding 20 more months of patent protection for Glaxo and for a handful of drug companies that are reaping a $5-million-a-day windfall from our error. That is what the bill did. This bill that came from the Judiciary Committee on Thursday added additional obstacles. It added months and perhaps years of court litigation.

Mr. PRYOR. Because it is based upon the same principle the Senator from Utah enunciated when he got up to speak. This is to right a wrong. The GATT issue is to right a wrong. I subscribe to that same issue.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am somewhat at a loss because I have been in the Finance Committee this morning and also have been serving in another capacity for the last few minutes, so I have not heard any of the actual statements on the floor of the U.S. Senate that have been made this morning. However, it has been brought to my attention that several statements have been made relative to the gasoline tax and the proposal to repeal 4.3-cent-per-gallon of the gasoline tax. Considering that those statements have been made this morning and having a general idea of probably what those statements were, I would like to not only stand for a moment to respond but also to place in the Record some pertinent facts that I think need to be made very clear. First, in the Finance Committee meeting this morning, which I must say was very spirited, very lively, we had a lot of discussion about whether or not we should repeal the 4.3-cent-per-gallon gas tax enacted in 1993 toward deficit reduction. We had a distinguished panel that represented the truckers, that represented the bus industry, that represented the airline industry. They had a wonderful man there who operates, in Prince Georges County, two service stations. The basic theory was, if we could get the Congress to repeal the 4.3-cent-per- gallon gasoline tax, that immediately 4.3 cents per gallon would be taken off of gasoline at the pump. Let us look back a little bit to see if this logic will come true. After 1993, the 4.3-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax was collected, after we placed the tax on and allocated this particular new tax, this new fee toward deficit reduction, not only did we start decreasing the deficit, but we did something else. Gasoline prices came down. Gasoline prices came down after we placed the 4.3-cent user fee, in 1993, on gasoline. People do not talk about that very much right now, but that was the case. There is another concern that I had this morning in today's hearing in the Finance Committee. The people on the panel, who are very good advocates for their constituent groups, for the truckers and the airlines, the service station owners, and all the rest, these individuals came before the Senate Committee on Finance this morning and basically stated that, first, ``If you will repeal this gasoline tax, we're going to be able to spur the economy, we're going to be able to lower gasoline prices, we're going to be able to buy diesel for our trucks at 4.3 cents per gallon less.'' But what was never stated, even though they were coming and saying, ``Give us a break, give us some relief,'' they never stated--any of them--how we were going to make up this loss of revenue. We collect $4.8 billion a year in this particular tax of 4.3 cents per gallon. Not one of our witnesses this morning said, ``We have a way for you to prevent the deficit from rising dramatically if you repeal this gasoline tax.'' Not one of them. Not one witness this morning gave us an indication of how we are going to make up this shortfall. I guess they were saying, ``Cut this tax out, let the deficit increase,'' because they gave us no responsible alternative for making up the difference. There is something else that concerned me, Mr. President, about that particular hearing. It was very, very partisan. It was extremely political. In fact, I commented that I did not know yet that the nominating conventions had started. I thought those were going to be in California and in Chicago come August, but it sounded like it was a political convention this morning in the Finance Committee. I am sorry it happened that way, but it did happen. You just have to take that on and take that as it is. But what was not said also by any of our panelists, nor Members on the other side of the aisle, I might say, is that some people's philosophy is that you should not ask the Government to solve all of the problems; that every time there is a problem, you do not seek Government intervention. But this is what, on the other side of the aisle, we are being asked to do at this time in response to rising gas prices. By the way, there are some Senators on our side of the aisle who support the repeal of the gasoline tax. Senator Baucus from Montana, for example, had a letter there and it stated his intent to vote for the repeal. I might vote for the repeal. I am not sure. I do not think I will. I might, if I can be shown where the consumers might benefit. But no one yet has shown us how the consumer is going to benefit to the tune of 4.3 cents a gallon if we repeal the gasoline tax. Here is what they also did not indicate this morning. They are coming to the Government for relief. Why do they not go to the oil companies for relief? You say, ``Wait a minute, how can they go and seek relief from the oil companies?'' Here is how. Let us look at the profits of, say, Shell, Amoco, Chevron, Texaco. In the first quarter of 1996, Shell reported $483 million in profits compared to $340 million in the first quarter of 1995. Amoco, $728 million in the first quarter this year compared to $523 million in the first quarter of 1995. Chevron, $616 million in the first quarter of 1996 compared to $459 million in the first quarter of 1995. Texaco, $386 million in the first quarter of 1996 compared to $297 million in profits in the first quarter of 1995. That is an increase, for example, of $143 million that Shell gained over the first quarter of last year. That is a situation where Amoco looks up here and all of a sudden the first quarter of this year, they have made $205 million more in net profits than they made in the first quarter of 1995--$205 million. That is where some relief can be given, because that is where the price at the pump is determined, not with the 4.3-cent-a-gallon deficit reduction tax. The price at the pump, as the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, is established by the oil companies as to what they charge the retailer at the service station. That is where the price is decided. The gasoline company, the Texacos and Chevrons remit that tax to the Government, not the retailer, not the Chevron dealer who was there from Prince George's County this morning. The retailers do not do that. The big oil companies collect and remit the tax, and I assume they charge a fee on top of the tax for collection and remission of the tax to the Federal Government. This is the same tax that has increased our opportunity to deal with the deficit numbers. Had we not had them, we perhaps would have been $30 billion more in debt. Mr. President, I know that there are a lot of organizations in this town that will steam up here in the next few days and weeks to repeal the gas tax. But I might note that we also have the taxpayer bill of rights 2. On this side of the aisle, we have cleared the taxpayer bill of rights 2 to be passed. The second taxpayer bill of rights gives equity, uniformity, and fairness to the taxpayers of America on our side of the aisle, we say, ``Let's go with it.'' On the other side of the aisle, ``Let's slow it up, because we may want to put this repeal of the gasoline tax on the taxpayer bill of rights.'' I hope they do not use that vehicle, because I think the taxpayers right now need to have that protection by the taxpayer bill of rights 2. It has been a bipartisan effort. The distinguished Presiding Officer, I think, has been a cosponsor of the taxpayer bill of rights. Let us not slow that down, and let us not speed up so quickly the stampeding to repeal the 4.3-cents-a-gallon gasoline tax unless we have the assurance, the absolute ironclad assurance that should we do it, the consumers are going to benefit and not the big oil companies. Right now, it does not seem like the big oil companies have a great deal of sympathy for the consumer when they are making 42 percent more profit; 39 percent more profit; 34 percent more profit; 30 percent more profit--Shell, Amoco, Chevron, Texaco, and on down the line. They are all awash in money. They say, ``Well, the reason that those gasoline prices are having to be increased right now''--you have heard them, Mr. President, you have watched them on television and read them--the reason is because of all these environmental standards that we have to meet; we are just having to take all of these profits and plow back in to increasing the environmental standards, and that is increasing our costs. Increase their costs? They are making 42 percent more profit than they did this time last year, Mr. President, so that argument does not work. They sound to me like the big pharmaceutical companies. They say, ``Oh, we have to make this enormous profit''--the most profitable industry in America today--``so we can do research.'' We pay them for research with research and development tax credits, and yet they are trying to hornswoggle the public, take advantage of the consumers, gouge the elderly. They are trying to charge the very highest prices, and they are getting by with it. They are getting by with it, Mr. President. They are charging the American consumer 40 and 50 percent more than that same drug is selling for across the border in Mexico and Canada and Great Britain, Europe--all over the world. We subsidize them, we pay for it, and we pay for their product through the nose. It is not right, and before we rush to judgment on repealing this 4.3 cent user fee, I just urge us to step back a little bit and say, ``Where are we going to make up the difference?'' Why can the oil companies not use a little more sympathy, and if we repeal it, is this actually going to mean that the consumer is going to get a break? In my opinion, there is no evidence whatsoever, not one scintilla of evidence that the consumer is going to benefit from this particular break. Mr. President, in the Wall Street Journal, I think this morning--and, by the way, we had no economists, we had only advocates for the particular constituencies there this morning--we said, ``Where are all the economists? Why didn't they come? Why didn't we have someone to answer this question? Are the consumers going to get the benefit of this repeal if we do in fact repeal it, if we increase the deficit and repeal the gasoline tax?'' Here is front page of the Wall Street Journal of this morning, Mr. President. It says, ``Don't Do It.'' I am going to quote: Many economists say repealing the gasoline tax is wrong. Federal Chairman Greenspan and board nominee Rivlin have previously called for higher rates to discourage consumption and balance the budget. By the way, Mr. President, I am not calling for higher rates. I am just saying that with the rates we have, we should not be stampeded into repealing them before we know what the results are going to be. Berkeley Alan Auerbach calls the cut, ``A silly idea.'' Mr. President, that is the Wall Street Journal this morning. It is a very conservative epistle, all of us know. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader, who is certainly a member and former chairman of the Finance Committee, very distinguished Member of this body, Senator Dole of Kansas--Senator Dole was talking this morning, today, and on the floor some this week, about the need to repeal the gasoline tax. You know, in 1982, only 1 day before Christmas Eve, December 23--we were in session around here that particular time, and I kind of remember that time. I will read from a ``Dear Colleague'' letter from Senator Dole, at that time the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. I am now quoting Senator Dole's ``Dear Colleague'' letter: I urge you to vote for the [Surface Transportation Act of 1982]. . . . The bill increases the taxes on gasoline, diesel fuel and other motor fuels from 4 to 9 cents per gallon. [A]n increase of 125 percent in the fuels taxes may look onerous . . . This will only amount to a 4 percent increase in gasoline prices and the new 9-cent tax will be significantly lower relative to other consumer prices than the 4-cent tax was when [that] was enacted in 1959. It seems the newer environment or recent events have convinced Senator Dole that maybe gasoline taxes all of a sudden are not good, because a few years back he was supporting the gasoline tax. Mr. President, there is also another part of our discussion this morning--I am sure there has been on the floor--that historically the Congress, in enacting a gasoline tax, puts this into the highway trust fund. Historically that is the truth except for in 1990 and 1993. Historically that is what the tradition has been. But, Mr. President, we found in 1993 a most unique situation. We found a deficit that had run wild that was out of control. We also found that we had a President who was willing to take a risk, a political risk. Mr. President, it was a political risk. Every Democrat on this side of the Senate Chamber voted for this particular package that included 4.3 cents. That 4.3 cents did not go to the highway trust fund. No, sir, it did not. You are correct; it did not. But at that moment we had to do something, we had to do something drastic, and we had to do something dramatic. We had a very unique situation that we had to take care of. The way that we started attacking it, Mr. President, was saying, OK, this may not be traditional, this may be unique, this may be different, but we are going to have to do it. We enacted the 4.3-cent gasoline tax. As a result, we have cut the deficit, Mr. President. As a result, in my opinion, the people go in to the service station and buy their gasoline, and if they think they are reducing the deficit with having to pay perhaps a little more, I think they are willing to do it. I may be wrong, but I think they are willing to do it. Our President took that opportunity. He accepted that challenge. He met the mandate of the people to do something about the national debt and the deficit. It was hard. I tell you it was a hard vote to cast over here. It was an easy vote over there because not one of our good colleagues on the other side--not one--voted for the package. I can remember the hue and cry after that--``the biggest tax increase in American history,'' and all of that. I did not think it was. I think in retrospect the historians will look kindly upon those who took that risk and who accepted that challenge that we had to do something to protect and to begin to protect the future generations who are going to be called upon to pay this huge deficit, this huge national debt. The 1993 deficit reduction bill was a way to start. To the best of my knowledge, the people out there--and I have not seen a poll on this, no sir--but to the best of my knowledge, the people have said, ``If it goes for deficit reduction, if it will help defray this onerous debt that is going to be on the backs of our children and grandchildren, I am willing to pay a little more. Let me also state once again, as I opened, Mr. President, that when we passed this 4.3-cent gasoline tax, the price of gasoline at the pump went down. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a chart and other tables which give that statement credibility and which backs it up with the facts be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am going to sit down in just a moment. I know my good friend from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, is now on the floor. But you are going to hear an awful lot now because it is 1996-- it is an even-numbered year--it is getting ready to be the last election of this century, and it is going to be a humdinger. It is going to be the one that we are going to tell our grandchildren and great-grandchildren about, because it is going to get pretty exciting. We are going to hear an awful lot about the 1993 economic plan, that it was the biggest tax increase in history, will ruin the country, whatever. I think we might start now setting that record straight. Look at the Wall Street Journal, October 26, 1994. I quote the Wall Street Journal: Contrary to Republican claims, the 1993 package is not the largest tax increase in history. The 1982 deficit-reduction package of President Reagan and Senator Robert Dole in a GOP controlled Senate was a bigger tax bill, both in 1993 adjusted dollars and as a percentage of the overall economy. The Wall Street Journal, not exactly a left-wing, Democratic newspaper, Mr. President. Let us look at the Washington Post, February 1, 1995, recently and I quote: The biggest tax increase in history did not occur in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993. The biggest increase in post-World War II history occurred in 1982, under President Ronald Reagan. Mr. President, part of Senator Dole's historic tax increase was in fact a 5-cent gasoline tax. Let us look at November 3, 1995, Mr. President, not long ago. It is not true that the $240 billion tax increase approved by Congress in 1993, at Mr. Clinton's behest, is the largest in American history. When adjusted for inflation--the only way to make comparisons of dollar amounts from different years--a tax increase endorsed by Mr. Dole, in 1982, when he was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, was larger. So, Mr. President, as we hear a lot of these statements made on this floor of this great institution, in the U.S. Senate, over the next several months up until the election, I think from time to time it behooves us well to come to this floor and to respond and set the facts out and set the record straight. f That is the purpose of my visit here this morning. I think as we go forward in the next several weeks, as this debate intensifies, it will be our obligation to come forward and spread the facts as to what the real story is on the record. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, if I might, I would like, through the Chair, to request my good friend from Iowa to stand by for a few moments, because I would very much like to know some of the points that he raised so that I might be able to respond. I say that in great respect to him. When I saw him take the floor and mention the Travelgate issue, I literally ran from my office in the Russell Building to be here so that I may attempt to respond. First, I do not know if the Senator from Iowa, in any way, has indicated or implied that a Member on this side of the aisle-- especially this Senator from Arkansas--or would have inferred that this Senator from Arkansas has had a hold on this particular bill, known as the Travelgate reimbursement bill for legal fees. In this morning's Washington Times, Mr. President----

Mr. PRYOR. Sure.

Mr. PRYOR. I do not object. I am very proud that my good friend is raising this point so that I can finally respond to it. The Washington Times indicated this morning that the Senator from Arkansas, myself, Senator Pryor, had a hold on this bill to repay all of the legal fees, some $500,000, which had been amassed by those people involved in the Travelgate episode. Mr. President, I want to state this: I do not have a hold on this bill. I have never placed a hold on a bill in my 18 years in the Senate. I will be here about another few months, and I will never place a hold on a bill, or a piece of legislation. I do not think that is a healthy way to conduct the business of the Senate. And I deeply resent--not the Senator from Iowa--but any insinuation by anyone from the media that the Senator from Arkansas has a hold on this bill. I do not have a hold. I have never talked to anybody about having a hold. I have never mentioned to the majority leader, to the minority leader, to the floor staff, to the Cloakroom, or anyone, that I want to stop this bill. In fact, Mr. President, I want to see this bill come to the floor. I wish it would come to the floor tonight. I wish we would vote on it tonight, because I am probably going to support it because I have an amendment I may want to add to this bill. This amendment relates to changing the implementation of the GATT treaty, so that a handful of drug companies will not continue taking advantage of the American consumer, the American taxpayer, in the sale of certain pharmaceutical drugs. I might use this bill as that vehicle, Mr. President, to offer that amendment so that we can correct this odious mistake that the Congress has made in carving out a special exemption and a special place for Glaxo, the manufacturer of Zantac, and other drug firms of the manufacturing nature, in the manufacture of drugs that are necessities of life for people. I was going to use this as a possible vehicle to make that change and to offer that amendment. There is another bill that I hope will come to the floor. The Senator from Iowa had worked for many years on something we called the taxpayers' bill of rights. I was going to see if there would be a way to offer my amendment on Glaxo and the GATT implementing legislation. I have been consulting with my colleague, Senator Brown of Colorado, and Senator Chafee of Rhode Island, to establish which vehicle would be best for us to use to get the maximum number of votes. If Travelgate was the one, that would be fine, or the taxpayers' bill of rights, that would be fine. Whatever the legislation, Mr. President, I was prepared to offer this amendment to correct this mistake Congress made, which allows extra profits of $5 million each day to one particular firm, which I think is unconscionable. I state to my friend, once again, I do not have a hold on this bill. Please insert the article. I will certainly not object. I thank the Senator for raising the point, because all day I have been asked by various members of the press if I actually had a hold on the bill. I do not. I see that my friend may be seeking recognition.

Mr. PRYOR. I am happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Iowa very much. I once again appreciate this opportunity to be able to come to the floor and attempt to clarify this situation which I think is somewhat of sync. If I might, before my friend and colleague leaves the floor, I am just going to take a very few moments before my colleague leaves. There seems to be sort of an insinuation in some of the media writings--in the Washington Times--that the White House, through Senator Pryor from Arkansas, being from the same State as the President and the First Lady, might be inclined to put a hold on this bill so as not to embarrass the White House, or whatever. Mr. President, let me state in the presence of my colleague, the Senator from Iowa, that I have never talked to anyone in the White House about this bill. Never, ever have I talked to anyone in the White House about this bill. I do not think they have any idea whether there is a hold on this bill or not. In fact, I think I have seen in the press, or I have heard somewhere, that the President has indicated that he would probably sign this bill. I do not know what the President's position on this bill is. But, if I may, I am so appreciative of the Senator remaining to let me tell him how this might have started. This is a very small body, and we all know each other. I went the other evening to one of Senator Grassley's colleagues, Mr. President, on the other side of the aisle, and I said, ``When is the Travelgate reimbursement for legal fees bill coming?'' They said, ``Well, we are not sure.'' I said, ``I may have an amendment to the bill.'' I may amend it either with the GATT implementation legislation to try to cure this terrible mistake we have made to allow all these windfall profits to occur for Glaxo and other companies, or I may have another amendment. I may offer an amendment to put some extra money in this bill as a contingency fund, a contingency fund to somehow begin to compensate and to give some protection, even a modest amount of protection, for those individuals who are being dragged up here to Washington, DC, time and again at their own expense incurring enormous back-breaking legal fees to appear before the Whitewater committee. Mr. President, these people are financially destitute. These are not Presidents and First Ladies necessarily. These are secretaries and file clerks who are having to answer a subpoena and bring records, bring themselves, pay for airplanes, and come up here and give opportunities to be grilled and interrogated by the Whitewater committee. Mr. President, I do not know if Mr. Dale's firing was right or not. I have not truly followed that case. I think the President probably had the right to fire him should he have wanted him fired. I do not know how that worked. But whether he did or whether he did not, that is irrelevant to the other issue. Do we need to start looking at a way to protect private citizens in the payment of their legal fees when they are not a target of an investigation, when they are not even truly a part of any problem that has given rise to an investigation when those individuals cannot pay their legal bills? Mr. President, when these people are first talked to about appearing before this committee or before Kenneth Starr's grand jury in Arkansas or before a grand jury here, they do not know what is happening. They do not know if they need an attorney or not. They do not know in most cases whether they are a target of an investigation or not. They are having to produce mountains of information. They are having to produce file drawers full of documents. For many of those documents, they do not know where they are. But in most cases they are trying to comply in good faith and with good intentions. So, Mr. President, that may have been how this rumor started about the Senator from Arkansas putting a hold. I said that I might have an amendment. One amendment might be on the GATT Glaxo issue; one amendment might be to add additional funds so that we could cover those individuals who could not pay attorney's fees who are not targets of an investigation. I remember hearing the majority leader sometime back. I tell you, I think he was right. I remember him talking about someone who had been hauled--perhaps hauled or subpoenaed--before the Iran-Contra committee. I believe that was the case. The majority leader said then that what he was going to have to do is go out and try to get his reputation back. Those words rang in my ears, and they ring in my ears again as we continue dragging these people up from especially our State and where it is going to wreak financial devastation on some of these individuals who have had no part in creating this problem but were merely what you might call lower echelon public servants who are going to be financially destitute after all of this is over. Mr. President, I see the distinguished majority leader is here. I want to thank once again my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, for remaining, and he has had to leave the floor now. Seeing no other Senators seeking recognition, I yield the floor at this time. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Once again I should have been here a few moments ago because it was my understanding that one of my colleagues, and perhaps even the majority leader himself, made some reference to the appointment of judges by President Clinton.

Mr. PRYOR. I did not hear the majority leader.

Mr. PRYOR. I see. Notwithstanding the majority leader's assurances that he has not talked about President Clinton's appointments to the bench, Mr. President, I think the record should fairly reflect what the facts are about this. I really appreciate the majority leader yielding to me for a moment. The appointments of President Clinton's judges--in fact, almost two- thirds of President Clinton's judicial appointments--have received the American Bar Association's highest rating: ``Well qualified,'' the highest percentage of any of his three predecessors. Second, U.S. News and World Report is saying with regard to President Clinton's appointments to the bench, and I quote, ``Centrism is carrying the day.'' Third, even Senator Hatch, our colleague and friend from Utah, our distinguished chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, has as recently as August 3, 1995, Mr. President, stated at a confirmation hearing, and I quote: I wish to compliment the administration for the type of people they are sending to us. It is making our job much easier. That is a direct quote from the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah. Only two more comments, because I know the distinguished majority leader may be needing to get on. Only 3--only 3--of the 185 judges in the lower Federal court appointed by President Clinton have been even the subject of contested votes. They did not even have a vote--only three have been subjected to a contested vote in the Judiciary Committee or in this Chamber. I think this is a remarkable record. Finally, Mr. President, let me say that the Senate has approved unanimously with the consent of all Republicans 182 of 185 lower court Federal judges President Clinton has nominated and were ultimately approved for the bench. So I think from time to time it is necessary for us to put the facts out in the Record, and I am very, very grateful for the understanding and the opportunity the majority leader has given me to make this record. Mr. President, I yield the floor.