David Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, if the majority leader will answer a question, I would appreciate it.

Mr. PRYOR. I am wondering--I guess we are calling the compensation measure, the Travelgate issue, Billy Dale--which is fine. I think we will just call it the Billy Dale legislation.

Mr. PRYOR. I wonder if the majority leader might be favorably disposed to any kind of amendment to that which might set up a fund to ultimately compensate those people regarding the Whitewater matter who may have been called here or called to Little Rock or called to some grand jury, to help them be compensated for their legal fees, if they were not a target of the investigation, not a subject of the investigation, and are found to be destitute and cannot pay their legal bills. I wonder if the majority leader would look kindly on such an amendment.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished majority leader for yielding.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, on Friday, May 3d, Mr. Carl Garner of Tumbling Shoals, AR, will retire from Federal Service after 58 years as an employee of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He is one of the longest consecutive serving Federal employees in the history of this Nation, and today I want to take a brief moment to reflect on his career and service to our country. Carl Garner began his career with the Army Corps of Engineers on June 16, 1938, following his graduation from Arkansas College--now Lyon College. His early career placed him at Bull Shoals Lake in northern Arkansas. On March 15, 1959, he was assigned to the new project at Greers Ferry Lake as a supervisor for Construction Management Engineering. Greers Ferry Lake would become Carl Garner's life's work, and today you cannot mention one without mentioning the other. On October 14, 1962, Carl was named Resident Engineer for Greers Ferry Lake, and has held that title for 34 years. On October 3, 1963, President John F. Kennedy dedicated the last public works project of his life and short Presidency on a hillside overlooking the dam at Greers Ferry Lake. Carl Garner stood on the podium with the President on that occasion. Carl Garner had a vision. He was an environmentalist long before the word became common in our vernacular. Carl's vision was that Greers Ferry Lake should be pollution free and should reflect the natural beauty and landscape of the region. Greers Ferry Lake should be a model for the Nation, and today, it is the pearl in our Nation's inventory of multiple purpose man-made lakes. The vision that Carl Garner has preached for the last 30 years involves responsibility. Today, because of the tenacity and foresight of this one man, we have a public law, Public Law 99-402, which requires all Federal agencies that manage land and water to conduct a Federal lands clean-up. Carl has taught us to be responsible with our environment through the Greers Ferry Lake clean-up, which occurs on the first Saturday following Labor Day each year. Over the years, literally hundreds of thousands of volunteers have learned how to be environmentally responsible because of Carl's legacy, and Greers Ferry Lake is the result. Mr. President, I am proud to say that Carl Garner is my friend. His impact on my world is profound. Today I salute him and wish him the very best in his future endeavors as he enjoys a well earned retirement from Federal service.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me. Before I speak, Mr. President, on the subject that I have chosen here for the next few minutes, I compliment my colleagues from Massachusetts and Kansas for the tremendously fine work they have done in this whole field of health care over a long period of time. This, today, I think is the culmination of their sincere effort, their tedious effort, and certainly demonstrates their commitment to improving the health care available in our country. So, Mr. President, this Senator certainly congratulates these two fine Senators for their commitment and their work.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, the Senate special Whitewater committee resumes its hearings tomorrow. The committee's tentative schedule is, as I understand--I am not on the committee--to have a hearing on every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of each week until the authorization of the committee expires on June 17, 1996. As I have said before, the time and money being spent by this special committee could be better spent on other issues of greater importance and magnitude to this country of ours. Mr. President, I will take just a moment to discuss, if I might, the amount of money and the time and the resources being spent on the Whitewater investigation, both here and in my home State of Arkansas. The Senate has called 121 witnesses during its 47 days of its special committee review. In an earlier statement, Mr. President, I mentioned the fact that in 1995 alone the Senate held 34 hearings on Whitewater, while we held only six hearings on Medicaid funding and only one hearing--only one hearing--on Medicare reform. After all the time we have already spent on Whitewater, these types of issues are far more deserving of our attention in the remainder of this session of the Congress. However, Mr. President, it is not just the amount of time and money that the Senate has spent on the Whitewater review that concerns me. There is another side of this discussion, and it is the amount of money, the amount of resources, that our Government has spent on the issue of Whitewater. The Senate has spent roughly $1.35 million on its Whitewater investigation in the 104th Congress. That is just the amount that the Senate has specifically appropriated to the Whitewater review panel. This does not include, Mr. President, the money spent by the Senate Banking Committee on its Whitewater efforts. It does not include the amount of money spent by the House of Representatives in its Whitewater review. Of course, it does not even begin to take into consideration the amount of money spent by our special counsels. In addition to the congressional efforts in this issue, I would also like to discuss the independent counsel review. According to the General Accounting Office, Robert Fiske, the special counsel originally named to investigate the Whitewater issue, spent $2,498,744 from January 22, 1994, through September 30, 1995, which was the latest date which the GAO had this information. I am sure more tallies will be coming in soon. On his investigation alone, almost $2.5 million was spent. Then he was fired from the case. The GAO also points out that Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel appointed to replace Mr. Fiske, has spent $4,512,065 from August 5, 1994, through September 30, of 1995. We have no more recent figures, Mr. President, since September 30 of last year. But today's Washington Post had an article, I must say, Mr. President, that caught my attention. It is an article which illustrates where some of this money is going. Sam Dash, the Watergate chief counsel, famed, well known, well respected, is now being paid $3,200 a week for his service as ethics adviser to Mr. Starr. I am going to repeat that, Mr. President. Sam Dash, the Watergate chief counsel, is now being paid $3,200 each week for his service as ethics adviser to Mr. Kenneth Starr. Mr. Starr is the first independent counsel in the history of our Republic to see the need to hire an independent counsel that advises him on ethics. I think I echo, Mr. President, the statement made by Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor and scholar at New York University, who recently said in a Baltimore Sun article: When the public hears that the independent counsel--who is there supposedly because of his distance from the traditional prosecutorial office--needs an independent counsel for ethics advice [at a substantial cost] it's almost impossible to explain how that can be so. The perception is that something's amiss. Mr. President, that was Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics scholar from New York University, who made that particular statement. Mr. President, I have other concerns as well. I have recently asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation to share with me the five top cases currently being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. President, here are the top five cases. One is the Oklahoma City bombing. That makes sense. Second, the Unabomber. That makes sense. Thriftcon--a national bank fraud and embezzlement case. Fourth, Mr. President, is Whitewater. Fifth is the World Trade Center bombing. Now, this is based upon the number of personnel, the amount of resources, the number of dollars, and the establishment of priorities of our own Federal Bureau of Investigation. Whitewater, today, comes right after Thriftcon, Unabomber, Oklahoma City bombing, and before resources and dollars that the Federal Bureau of Investigation have used to investigate the World Trade Center bombing in the city of New York. Mr. President, I do not know how in the world we could go home and explain such a poor allocation of priorities as the one demonstrated by this particular chart. Mr. President, the money spent by the independent counsel does not tell the whole story. Those numbers do not even include the moneys spent by the FBI and other agencies to support the independent counsels. Under the statute authorizing the independent counsel, each independent counsel is able to request and receive assistance from Federal agencies. Mr. President, most of the independent counsels are using the talents of the Federal employees and the resources of the Federal Government available to them. According to the figures supplied by GAO, the IRS has spent over $1 million to support the Fiske-Starr Whitewater investigation. The Justice Department, apart from the FBI, has spent $86,000 on the investigation. However, Mr. President, the FBI has spent far and away the most money of any agency working for Mr. Fiske, the former independent counsel, and Mr. Starr, the present independent counsel. According to the numbers reported by the GAO, the FBI spent $3,473,000 in support of Mr. Fiske's investigation, and already has surpassed $8,064,000 supplying staff for Mr. Starr's investigation. To get a sense of what these figures mean, Mr. President, I asked the FBI how many people that number represents. They told me that the $11.5 million represents 41 special agents and 81 support staff. Thus far, I know I have thrown around a lot of numbers and my time has expired. When we add everything together, the Whitewater independent counsels have spent $19,673,809, Mr. President, almost $20 million, in less than a year and a half, has been spent on the Whitewater investigation. That, Mr. President, is why I continue to have grave concerns about appropriating any more money to start up the second phase of the Whitewater investigation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a story in this morning's Washington Post, dated April 23, 1996, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article of April 15, 1996, as published in the Baltimore Sun.

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

Mr. PRYOR. Every bit is taxpayers' money.

Mr. PRYOR. This is the first time, I answer my friend from Vermont, in the history of all of the legal independent counsels that we have had, that an independent counsel has felt the necessity of retaining an ethics attorney or an ethics adviser. In this one, the taxpayers are paying $3,200 each week. I imagine that is more than a member--I do not know what a member of the Supreme Court gets.

Mr. PRYOR. That is correct. He is a fine law professor. Mr. Starr gave him this job in order to advise Mr. Starr on ethics. I do not know one time yet that Mr. Dash has not told Mr. Starr what he was doing was OK, including making $1.3 million last year.

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, I thank the Chair very much for recognizing me, and I will not belabor this issue very long. I know the Senate is leaving early this afternoon, and I do not want to delay the departure of our staff members who have been so loyal in helping us this afternoon and today. It has been an interesting day in the U.S. Senate. I just was listening to one of the monitors and watching one of the monitors. I happened to note my very, very good friend from Iowa, the Honorable Senator Charles Grassley, a wonderful long-time friend of mine, someone I have worked with very closely on the issues of oversight and overstepping of the Internal Revenue Service, of defense spending, which we thought at the time had gotten out of hand and was very unfair. We worked on several issues over these years together. I look forward to the remainder of my term in working with him further on various matters that affect our respective States and certainly our great country. But I was a little taken aback when my friend from Iowa got up and started talking about our President, Earth Day, and what happened yesterday nearby, just a few miles away, I think, on the upper reaches of the Potomac River. My friend from Iowa sort of took our President to task and the Vice President to task I guess for even appearing at an Earth Day event. I do not know what his concern was. But if in fact the President did mention that the other political party's proposals on some of our environmental concerns were in fact lacking, then, Mr. President, I am going to have to disagree with my friend from Iowa, and I am going to have to, yes, agree with our President. For example, legislation recently circulated to rewrite the Clean Air Act by our good friends on the other side of the aisle would repeal the toxic air pollution standards and would absolutely cripple the enforcement of the Clean Air Act. I do not think that is a piece of legislation we can go to future generations with and say we were very proud of ourselves when we attempted to cripple the enforcement of the Clean Air Act. I think our President was right when he said that there is a difference between the two political parties and the way that they look at the environment and legislation that would perhaps undo all of the progress that has been made in cleaning up the air we breathe under the Clean Air Act over the last 25 years. Some 25 years ago, when I first came to the House of Representatives as a young Member, as a new Member of that great body, I remember during that time I had three small sons, and from time to time on a Sunday afternoon or Saturday afternoon, perhaps, we would get a fishing pole or swimming suit and we would go down to the banks of the Potomac River, and I will never forget--and this was not long ago--there were signs up and down the banks of the Potomac River: no swimming allowed; do not eat any fish, the fish will be contaminated if caught in this river. Mr. President, in this quarter of a century what we have done as a body, Republicans and Democrats alike, has not only helped to clean up that river, but we are helping today to clean up our air, and we cannot make a retreat, especially in a political year when it might have a short-term appeal to some local interests, maybe some local business interests that want to compromise and that want to sacrifice the environment we have to pass on to future generations. I think the President was right when he implied yesterday that some of the legislation as proposed--we call them riders--to the VA appropriations bill would delay the issuance of toxic standards, air standards, that is, and would allow for the exemption of industries, exempt industries--just say we are sorry; we are going to apply this to some industries, but the rest of you are going to get off; you do not have to comply with the law; you do not have to obey the law; there is no law that impacts you. As we speak today, Fort Smith and Van Buren, AR, Sebastian and Crawford Counties in Arkansas, 48 hours ago were hit with massive tornadoes, two dead, hundreds of homes damaged. At this very moment, as we stand in the Senate Chamber and talk about clean air and clean water, because of necessity we are dumping raw sewage into the Arkansas River. We have no other option. Senator Bumpers and I will be calling in the morning Carol Browner of the EPA to say that we have an emergency; we have to do something. We have emergencies all over this country not caused by a recent natural disaster but emergencies that are existing today where we are polluting our streams and our air and where we have to do something about it. This generation cannot back away. Our President yesterday was talking sincerely and earnestly about what we can do together as political parties. The Republicans, by the way, at that Earth Day event yesterday, several Republican Representatives from Congress were agreeing with our President. I hope that we can make this a nonpolitical issue and talk about the facts, those facts being we do have a difference of opinion, but we do need to join together and do what is right for the environment. Budget cuts--and I know the Presiding Officer realizes this--and the Government shutdowns, what have they done? What have they accomplished? Have they saved any money? Probably not much. What have they really done? They have delayed the EPA's issuance of new standards for toxic industrial air pollutants--new standards for toxic industrial air pollutants. Those standards are now on hold. Why? Because of Government shutdowns and budget cuts. The delay in the issuance of air toxic standards has resulted in the continued release of harmful chemicals--mercury, chromium, formaldehyde, and lead--into our air. More than 45 million people, Mr. President--the distinguished occupant of the chair realizes this--in our country still live in areas with unhealthy levels of ground level ozone or smog. I did not know this until just lately, but the EPA reports that the United States refineries alone, and I quote, ``emit more than 78,000 tons per year of established hazardous air pollutants, or 9 tons of toxics emitted into the air every hour nationwide.'' How can we repeal some of these rules? How can we say that some companies and some industries are exempt and do not need to comply with making progress in eliminating this unclean air and unclean water. My good friend from Iowa also talked about another issue. I am going to come back to this issue of the environment in a moment. I was hoping that my friend from Iowa was going to be here because he made reference to not only the President of the United States, but he made reference to another gentleman, a gentleman who is very close to my heart. His name is Chris Jennings. He says, who is this man, Chris Jennings? He said that this Chris Jennings, whoever he is, said, and then he quoted something that Chris Jennings had said. First, Chris Jennings for many years worked for the Senate Special Committee on Aging, probably one of the finest staff people who ever worked for that particular committee or has ever worked in the Senate, and I would daresay that most of the Members on this side of the aisle at one time or the other have worked closely with this so-called man named Chris Jennings. I would say that Members on the other side of the aisle have worked closely with Chris Jennings. If I could only jog the memory of my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, who has been for years a loyal member of the Special Committee on Aging, I am sure that Mr. Jennings has not only worked for Senator Grassley in many capacities, has served him in many capacities, but also I am sure that should Mr. Grassley see Mr. Jennings and reacquaint himself with him, he would know him and would respect him, as all of us do in the Senate. Chris Jennings is a remarkable individual, a splendid and dedicated servant. But, somehow or another, I did not quite appreciate the tone of my friend from Iowa. I know he did not mean in any way to be disparaging of our friend, Mr. Jennings, I am sure, today. I hope our friend, Senator Grassley, will realize the dedication of this fine former member of our Senate Special Committee on Aging staff. I am sure he knows his great qualifications and his great commitment. Our friend from Iowa was talking, of course, about the Medicare funding. We think it is very important to point this out. Absolutely. We know what the dollars and cents are. I do not think we are arguing with those figures. But I think we also need to point out there remains today over $120 billion in the trust fund for Medicare. There is no imminent danger that claims are not going to be paid--absolutely none. There is no imminent danger that these claims are not going to be paid. The updated information should not be used to scare the 37 million elderly citizens in this country or people with disabilities. They should not be used for partisan political purposes. The trust fund will pay out the claims. I repeat, the trust fund will pay out the claims, at least through the turn of this century, no matter what, and much longer if the Congress would only enact the President's balanced budget proposal. We think it is very, very important to lay on the table the facts, as I have stated. We think there is equal importance not to intentionally scare the seniors of this country and to lead them to believe, or to imply, that their checks may not be paid and their claims will go unnoticed. We think, too, the information validates the President's position on Medicare that he has maintained during his Presidency. The latest information simply provides additional validation for the President's position that we should move forward and balance the budget to strengthen the trust fund. In fact, I have not talked to the President about this matter in a long time, but I would imagine, when the President read the Post or the New York Times or wherever this appeared this morning, about the trust fund, I imagine that the President said, ``Those are not very pretty figures, but we think that those figures will put people to thinking and start people to believing that we have to do something about our budget.'' The President has offered a proposal that achieves $124 billion in Medicare savings that would extend the life of the trust fund by at least 10 years from now. This proposal builds on the President's successes in strengthening the Medicare trust fund. Let me say this, and I hope I will not be accused of being too partisan. In 1993, let me remind my good friend from Iowa and the distinguished Members on the other side of the aisle that in 1993, without one Republican vote, not one, the President signed into law Medicare savings and other financing charges that extended the life of the trust fund from 2 to 3 years. That was a major accomplishment. So, as we enter now the real meat, I guess you would say, approaching a Presidential election, I think we should inform the citizenry of this wonderful country of ours that from time to time there will be skirmishes in this body because of necessity, because of beliefs, because of different ideologies. We will see those debates. I never thought this particular Chamber should become a political convention hall. I hope it does not. But I do think it can become the proper forum for us to discharge our obligations and certainly to debate the issues of our time and our generation. I would like to say I am sorry my friend from Iowa was not here. I do not mean in any way to be disparaging of him or question his sincerity. I just wanted to sort of set the record straight, after I heard my good friend's remarks. I hope in the coming days, again, we will have ample opportunity to lay these issues out on the table, out in the public, let the sunshine shine among them, and let us, at that time, bring to the people what we consider important questions of today. Mr. President, I see no Senator seeking recognition. Therefore, I yield the floor, Mr. President, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me. Mr. President, I am very pleased and honored to join with my friend from Colorado, Senator Brown, in the introduction of this amendment. This is the so-called GATT Glaxo amendment. The issue has been presented here on the floor. In fact, this is a simple way of correcting a major mistake that Congress made in adopting the GATT Treaty. It was an oversight. It has been testified to time and time again by Mickey Kantor--our then U.S. Trade Representative who negotiated this particular treaty--that it was a mistake, and that it needs to be corrected. The Patent Office said it was a mistake, and all up and down the line people agree that this was an enormous mistake that we need to correct at this time. The first time we brought this issue to a vote on the floor was December 7, 1995. On that particular vote, the vote cast in the Senate was 48 to 49. There was one abstention. There was one absent Senator. And since that day, since that particular delay, I think it might be interesting to note that very few--a handful of drug companies--Glaxo specifically, have made a profit, or a gross income, because of this variation in the GATT Treaty giving a particular exception, a particular benefit, to a handful of drug companies. There has been an extra $5 million per day in income to these companies. Since December 7, 1995, we have seen an income of $665 million extra to these drug companies that is being paid out of the pockets of the consumers especially for drugs such as Zantac; $665 million--a windfall profit gift that we have given to these particular companies, and especially to a company called Glaxo. We also note that Senator Hatch wrote a letter to us, the sponsors of this amendment, on December 13. He said he promised hearings on February 27, 1996. So we waited and waited and waited around for that hearing. According to his promise, the distinguished chairman, Senator Hatch, held a hearing. By that time another $310 million had been given to the drug companies in a windfall profit situation. We waited another month--until March 28, 1996. The Judiciary markup was scheduled, and it was abruptly canceled. So once again there was a delay. This morning, on April 18, 1996, another Judiciary markup on S. 1277 to correct this egregious error in GATT was held. And, when the Senators arrived at the markup, it was noted that a Senator had put a hold on the markup, that there would be no actual vote on S. 1277. And, therefore, Mr. President, another $665 million in profits for a very few drug companies. Now it is noted that the chairman this morning stated that if possible we will have a hearing in the Judiciary Committee next week on the 25th of April, and possibly we could mark this bill up, S. 1277. But in the meantime, Mr. President, the clock is running. We feel that this is a health bill, that this is the proper way to bring this bill to the attention of our colleagues, and it is the proper measure to attach this correction to the GATT Treaty. We hope that our colleagues will support this measure. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, my apologies to the Senator from Colorado. Has the Senator from Colorado finished his statement?

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I will take but a few moments of the Senate's time this evening. We need to move on. The distinguished managers have requested that we move to final resolution of this very important measure. But I would like to take, Mr. President, in opening, a few moments to discuss our particular concerns over this uncorrected error in our laws which has led to unnecessarily high drug prices. I would like to quote from my good colleague who is departing the Senate and is a great friend, Senator Paul Simon of Illinois. Senator Simon recently spoke on the issue of correcting this problem in the GATT treaty. I quote from Senator Simon when he said, ``This is a classic example of special interests versus the public interest.'' Mr. President, that is what this debate, I am afraid, has boiled down to. I know my friend from Colorado, Senator Brown, in his eloquent statement has placed into the Record a recent editorial of December 4, 1995 from the Washington Post. I will read a paragraph from that editorial: All for lack of a technical conforming clause in a trade bill, full patent protection for a drug called Zantac will run 19 months beyond its original expiration date. Zantac, used to treat ulcers, is the world's most widely prescribed drug, and its sales in this country run to more than $2 billion a year. I continue quoting from the Washington Post editorial: The patent extension postpones the date at which generic products can begin to compete with it and pull the price down. That provides a great windfall to Zantac's maker, Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. That is the beginning paragraph, Mr. President, of the Washington Post editorial. To conclude from that editorial, let me read: That makes it doubly difficult to understand why the Senate refuses to do anything about a windfall that, as far as the administration is concerned, is based on nothing more than an error of omission. Well, once again, this issue is with us. We failed by one vote back on December 7 to rectify this mistake. Since that time, a few companies like Glaxo Wellcome have earned more than $600 million in extra revenues because of a congressional error. It also means that the Veterans Administration, the Medicaid programs, the consumers of America, and especially the elderly of America are having to pay double for Zantac than what they would be paying had we allowed a generic to come into the marketplace and compete. This is not fair, Mr. President. We know that this is not fair. The Judiciary Committee this morning had scheduled a markup, one which has already been delayed from last month. They continue to promise that they are going to mark up S. 1277, the measure offered by Senator Brown and Senator Chafee and myself to correct this mistake in the GATT treaty. But, once again, this morning an unnamed Senator objected to the Senate Judiciary Committee marking up this measure, and, once again, it means more and more windfall profits for undeserving companies at the expense of consumers. These delays are completely unacceptable and unwarranted. The American public simply cannot abide further delays on behalf of special interests. What is at stake? Back on November 27, 1995, an editorial in the Des Moines Register stated that: A month's supply of Zantac ordinarily sells for around $115; the generic price--meaning the same drug without the Zantac label--would be around $35, the generic makers contend. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that Des Moines Register editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, finally, let me say we all know what this issue is about. We have debated this issue to some extent on the floor of the Senate and to a great extent in the Judiciary Committee. We heard our U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Kantor conclusively explain the situation, and I quote: The provision was written neutrally because it was intended to apply to all types of patentable subject matter, including pharmaceutical products. Conforming amendments should have been made to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and section 271 of the U.S. Patent Act, but were inadvertently overlooked. One other quote from Ambassador Kantor: We intended to apply this grandfather provision to the pharmaceutical area. S. 1277 would result in a level of protection that is consistent with our original intent. Mr. President, let me say, Senator Brown, Senator Chafee and myself have tried to proceed in good faith. There are Members on each side of the aisle that have stated their concern about, and in some cases their objection to, certain language that we had in this legislation. We have attempted to meet with them. We have attempted to compromise. We have certainly gone to the negotiating table and attempted to bargain in good faith and see what their concerns are. Truly, Mr. President, I believe that we now have come together and crafted an amendment that is acceptable to all those concerned with doing what is right for consumers, businesses which have relied upon the law in good faith and for our compliance with a very important treaty. The amendment represents the simplest and best means for us to correct the egregious flaw that persists today because of unconscionable delays and the efforts of special interests. Mr. President, I want to say in conclusion that I have thoroughly enjoyed working with Senator Brown of Colorado and Senator Chafee of Rhode Island, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I hope we can bring this matter to a resolution in the very near future.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, if we could ask a question, Mr. President, while the two distinguished managers are on the floor. It is 6:15; I did not realize there were quite as many amendments.

Mr. PRYOR. Are we planning to go on into the evening?

Mr. PRYOR. Good night, Mr. President, thank you. Amendment No. 3679 (Purpose: To establish a minimum amount that may be applied as an aggregate lifetime limit with respect to coverage under an employee health benefit plan or a group health plan)

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me. I will speak only a very few moments. I know we want to get on with the business of the Senate. I want to first commend my colleague, Senator Sarbanes, the ranking member of the committee, and I want to commend the chairman of the committee for ultimately working out an agreement. Maybe this can be a solution by which we might proceed in an orderly way to end the quest to find facts, information, and to educate ourselves on the so-called issue of Whitewater. Mr. President, if we had brought this issue to a vote, like my friend from New Mexico, I probably would have voted ``no''. I probably would have voted ``no'' on this resolution, Mr. President, simply because I think that there are enough forces out there occupying the time and resources of our Government and our judicial system to amply comply with the intent of this overall investigation. These hearings have already gone, Mr. President, as my friend from California has stated, longer than the O.J. Simpson trial. Longer, I think, in many instances that the Iran-Contra trial. These were national issues of great importance. This is an issue of some importance, but it is of importance only because it affects what we know as a Whitewater issue. It relates to a matter that took place 12 or 15 years ago in the State of Arkansas. How important is it as it relates to the other issues that we have to defend and debate and concern ourselves with at this time? That is the question. I do not feel that the Senate, nor this committee, should further utilize the resources of our Government to continue bringing witnesses up here from the State of Arkansas, week after week, day after day, and month after month, simply because it is a politically motivated endeavor. Mr. President, that is what it is. It is a politically motivated endeavor. Yesterday, the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee or the Whitewater Committee, if you might call it that, issued a press release in which he basically said if he did not get his way, if he did not have his way and if the Senate did not allow the Whitewater committee to continue--then he would use the Banking Committee to usurp the powers of the Whitewater Committee. He was then going to seek the authority to have the opportunity to investigate and to subpoena all financial records of every financial institution in the State of Arkansas. from January 1978 until January 20, 1993, when Governor Clinton became President Clinton. Mr. President, had that occurred--and I am glad it did not--and had the Banking Committee singled out one State, I was going to attempt to amend that resolution, if it was in the form of a resolution, and say, wait a minute, let us not just apply this to one State, Arkansas. Do not let this be the first time that a committee of the U.S. Senate has declared war on one of the States in this Union. Let us make it apply to New York, to all the banks and all the banking institutions, to Wall Street, and to the stock exchange. That has not been the prettiest picture for the last 15 to 18 years. Let us investigate them. Let us extend this authority there and see how far that resolution would have gotten. Well, Mr. President, of course, I am using a little bit of exaggeration. But I want to state that, for 15 years, had the Banking Committee had that authority to subpoena any and all records and any and all documents from all financial institutions in our State, it would have been a matter, I think, of egregious overreach of this body and, certainly, of the U.S. Government. Mr. President, further, I would like to state that--and I hope the Chair will pay close attention to this, as the distinguished Senator always does--we have recently asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation to do a little workup of the amount of resources that it has committed to the Whitewater issue. I was astounded and shocked when I found out what the five major ongoing investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation are right now. One is Oklahoma City, which takes priority. That is where most of the resources have been expended. No. 2, the Unabomber. Well, it has paid off because we may have caught the Unabomber. That is a lot of resources, and that is a proper use of the FBI. The third is another bank scandal. I can supply what State that is in for the Record. Evidently, a lot of FBI resources are being allocated to that particular bank scandal. But the fourth in priority of all the investigations where the FBI is allocating its major resources is--you guessed it--Whitewater. It even surpasses the commitment that we have made to the World Trade Center bombing by terrorists some 2 or 3 years ago. Whitewater has surpassed the use of FBI personnel and financial resources, and we have gone above and beyond those funds expended and agents expended to deal with the World Trade Center bombing of 2 or 3 years ago. That is unbelievably outrageous. In fact, some $11 million to $12 million of FBI resources have been expended just on Whitewater--$11 million to $12 million of FBI personnel, including 41 agents and 81 support personnel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation are looking at Whitewater events that happened 10, 12, 15 years ago. Mr. President, it is time, as other speakers have said, to really get our priorities right. I am hopeful that this committee will continue, will move expeditiously, will come to a conclusion, write its report, throw that report at the Congress, and then let us let the people decide what we should do about it. Finally, I want to say that this morning in the New York Times, finally--finally--under an editorial entitled ``Replacing Kenneth Starr,'' who is basically the special counsel--or what I call the ``special prosecutor'' in the Whitewater matter down in Little Rock. The New York Times has asked for Mr. Starr to be replaced. Why have they asked for Mr. Starr to be replaced, Mr. President? Well, it is very simple. It is because Mr. Starr has conflicts of interest, which are precluding him from presenting a fair image of investigation and of factfinding in the Whitewater matter. Here is the man who is charged with prosecuting and investigating this issue. But here also is the man who has the burden of bearing these conflicts of interest. The New York Times points out this morning in its editorial ``Replacing Kenneth Starr,'' that he is making speeches all over the country, representing controversial clients before the U.S. Supreme Court, representing, perhaps, the national Republican Party, and other groups that have direct conflicts of interest with the fair-mindedness that this hearing and process has to portray. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this editorial, ``Replacing Kenneth Starr,'' appearing this morning in the New York Times, be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, also, let me state that in this New Yorker magazine, dated April 22, I believe--I do not have my glasses with me-- there is a splendid article entitled ``How Independent Is the Counsel,'' once again, talking about the conflicts, talking about the image that this man who is burdened with these conflicts presents as he is attempting to portray that he is fair-minded, objective, and impartial in finding all the facts. It is time, Mr. President, that, once again, we sort of set this ship straight, if I might say that. It is time that we move forward with a fair determination of the facts and finding of the facts. I hope the committee will proceed expeditiously. But had I had the opportunity to vote, if it were a matter before this body that required a yes or no vote, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, yesterday I spoke briefly about our failure to correct a loophole in the GATT legislation which gives a handful of companies unprecedented and unintended special treatment. Our distinguished colleague, Senator Hatch, raised a few points which my distinguished colleague, Senator Chafee and I feel deserve clarification. For several months, we have sought an opportunity to remedy the mistake made by Congress and the administration when the GATT implementing legislation was enacted. The legislation's grandfather provisions were meant to apply to every person, product, company, and industry in the country. But the final GATT legislation accidentally excluded the prescription drug industry because it lacked a conforming amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. As a result, the prescription drug industry is the only industry in the country which received the patent extension but is unfairly exempted and shielded from competition. Because of this mistake, consumers and taxpayers are paying billions of dollars far too much for a handful of drugs, including Zantac, the world's best-selling drug.