David Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I concur wholeheartedly with Senator Chafee. Let me add that for a number of months, we have sought an opportunity to vote on the missing conforming amendment. In December, a primary argument against acting on the amendment was the alleged need for a committee hearing. The February 27 hearing was never sought by us and, in fact, it did not add a single additional fact to the public record on this issue. The hearing simply reinforced the substantial body of evidence which proves a costly and inequitable mistake was made and is in urgent need of correction. Nor has a markup in any committee ever been an objective of those seeking to correct this congressional mistake. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch promised a markup on this issue by the end of March. That apparently was not possible. My colleagues, Senators Chafee and Brown, and I believe very strongly that any further delay in remedying this clear and costly congressional error will only benefit a handful of companies at the expense of their competitors and the American public.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. So I will not surprise either of the splendid managers of this piece of legislation, I am going to vote against this bill. But there is one section I find very appealing in this legislation. I want to talk about that section just for a while, 4 minutes.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished ranking member, Senator Leahy, for yielding to me. I want to compliment not only Senator Leahy but also our friend and chairman of the committee, Senator Lugar of Indiana. This has been a very, very difficult process indeed--Mr. President steering this particular piece of legislation through the Agriculture Committee ultimately onto the floor of the Senate. In my opinion, it is long overdue. We will not fight that battle now. That has been the battle of the past days, and perhaps it could be a battle for a future day. But at least let me say that our two ranking members, our two managing members, this afternoon have worked very hard and very closely to bring this matter to the floor of the Senate this afternoon. I would like to take just a moment to highlight section 926 of the farm bill conference report to my colleagues in the U.S. Senate. I find myself in a very unusual position of pointing to something in this report which I actually support, and those sections are few and far between. But this is section 926 that I strongly support. As many of my colleagues know, I have not nor will I today support the freedom-to-farm concept espoused in the philosophy of this legislation. I believe it ends the much-needed safety net for our family farmers. However, I have stated my opinion numerous times on this floor, in the Agriculture Committee, and most recently in the last week or so as a member of the conference committee that brought this bill to the floor of the U.S. Senate. Nevertheless, I would like to very quickly highlight one particular provision which was included to recognize one of our distinguished colleagues in the U.S. Senate. Section 926 of the report designates the research facility operated by the Agricultural Research Service--ARS-- near Booneville, AR, as the ``Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center.'' Booneville, AR, by the way, is less than 15 miles south from an even smaller Arkansas town known as Charleston. The reason I bring this up is that Charleston, AR, just so happens to be the hometown of our colleague, the senior Senator from Arkansas, the Honorable Dale Bumpers. At one time Senator Bumpers not only operated a small business, which was a hardware store, but he was also an attorney in Charleston, AR. He took great pride in stating that he was not only the only attorney but that he was the best attorney in Charleston, AR. Mr. President, naming this research facility after the Honorable Dale Bumpers could not be more appropriate, and I am very pleased today to play a very small part in making this distinction possible. Senator Dale Bumpers has been a tremendous ally for the farmers and ranchers of Arkansas and across the whole country. As chair and now ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Bumpers has worked and continues to work tirelessly on behalf of the agriculture community. He is also, as we all know, the former chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee. It was early 1976 when the Booneville Chamber of Commerce went to work to find a better way to utilize State-owned land near this particular town. With the tireless help of Senator Dale Bumpers, the necessary groundwork began, and this truly grassroots project was off and running. After consideration of all possible uses for this land, the overwhelming conclusion was that a research facility to benefit small farms would be the most valuable use. I so well remember this project. It seems so many years ago, as I was Governor at the time and did what I could at the State level to push this project forward. Over the next couple of years working with Senator Bumpers, with his help, vision, and foresight with the feasibility studies that he was responsible for when they were conducted, additional backing was gained. Certainly they showed that a research facility for small farmers in small farming operations was justified. Since it was State- owned and State-involved, Mr. President, support from the Governor was crucial. And when my successor, Governor Bill Clinton, entered office in 1979 he quickly recognized the merit of establishing a small farms research center. Approval from local organizations was also obtained, and the citizens of Booneville traveled to Washington, DC, to the Nation's Capital to follow through on their efforts. I remember so well those meetings. I also remember the leadership of Senator Dale Bumpers--that much-needed fire that got these funds committed, and the project was then off the ground. Finally, in 1980, Mr. President, with all of the planning, and all of the studies finally completed, about 15 acres of State-owned land was leased to the University of Arkansas, which in turn was leased to the Department of Agriculture to be used in research. All of this would not have been possible without the leadership and the vision--and certainly the commitment--of the Honorable Dale Bumpers. On behalf of the citizens of Booneville, AR, and throughout our entire State, on behalf of the farmers and the ranchers who have and will continue to benefit from the important research conducted there, let me at this time express the much-deserved appreciation for all of Senator Bumpers' efforts in making a worthy project become reality. We hope that this small token of recognition will demonstrate our gratitude to Senator Dale Bumpers. Let me conclude, Mr. President, by stating that this idea to name this particular facility has been kicking around I must say for a long time. For a long time many members of the community of Booneville have thought that the appropriate name for this center would be the ``Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center.'' We have leaders like Jeral Hampton, Rick Lippard, Gene Remy, Don Dunn, A.B. Littlefield, and John T. Hampton who served on a committee to steer this center from the blueprint stage to the active research stage that it finds itself in today. It is a great opportunity, and I must say a great challenge that lies ahead to benefit not only small farmers in our State but small farmers in research across this great country of ours. It is a great honor for me. It is great to be able to assist in the proper naming of this U.S. Department of Agriculture research center after our distinguished colleague and senior Senator from the State of Arkansas. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am not seeking recognition to speak, but merely to ask the question, is there a possibility that we could seek, once the speakers coming up are through--I have been here for a good while this morning. In fact, I have enjoyed being over here this morning listening to some of this debate. But I see some of my colleagues, Senator Kerrey, Senator Bryan. I would be glad to follow them, if I just knew some order.

Mr. PRYOR. I would be glad to follow my colleague, Senator Bryan.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Alaska be recognized for 8 minutes, and after the Senator from Alaska finishes, I be recognized for a 10-minute period. I ask that the time that I use be charged to Senator Kerry of Massachusetts.

Mr. PRYOR. If I may respond, what we are doing is continuing the sequencing, because Senator Bumpers, after finishing his presentation, we have asked that Senator Murkowski on the other side be recognized, and then I would be recognized. I guess I would be recognized after Senator Murkowski.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am going to revert back to a measure that we just passed in the Senate, I think, less than an hour ago, which is the debt ceiling legislation. On that legislation, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, had included an amendment he had long fought for, and I support that amendment very strongly, Mr. President. That was an amendment relative to the social security earnings test. It was on that particular amendment that I had told the leadership in times past that should that amendment come to the floor, I was going to attempt to amend that particular provision with a measure that would basically clear up, once and forever more, a mistake we made in the GATT Treaty legislation that we passed last year in the U.S. Senate. In other words, Mr. President, I was going to use that as a vehicle to amend this provision, which allows one particular drug company-- Glaxo, for example--to absolutely continue taking advantage of not only the taxpayer, but also the consumer, the aging American, taking this particular drug called Zantac, and prohibiting, precluding generic competition from coming into the marketplace. Mr. President, on December 13, 1995, I received a letter from my friend and colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. In the letter it says, ``Please be assured that I intend to honor my commitment. I will begin a hearing on pharmaceutical patent issues February 27, 1996, and I plan to hold a markup by the end of March.'' Well, Mr. President, our friend and colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, did in fact hold a hearing on February 27, 1996. However, the markup on this particular matter, the Glaxo issue, has not been scheduled. It has not been scheduled for any time in March. To the best of my knowledge, it has not been scheduled for April, May, and who knows--I just hope it will be scheduled someday. But what is at issue is this fact: Every day we refuse in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, the other body, to correct this mistake that we made through this system, in not clearing up the issue of the patent extension for this particular drug company, and about six other drug companies, every day that we refuse, every day that we delay, Mr. President, we are fattening their pocketbooks to the extent of $5 million a day. That is $5 million each day that is being paid for by the consumer, the taxpayer, the Veterans Administration, the HMO's, right on down the line--any consumers that buy Zantac. We have been told that a generic that is ready to go into the marketplace immediately could absolutely walk into that marketplace today, begin competition with Zantac at one-half of the price of this prescription drug. But, Mr. President, we have refused to do it. We have had a vote in December, and we failed by two votes to get enough votes in this body to close this loophole and to state that we are no longer going to continue this very major windfall for one or two or three drug companies. We made a mistake. We extended all patents from 17 to 20 years in GATT, and we said that a generic company could market their product on the 17-year expiration date, if they already made a substantial investment and were willing to pay a royalty. We think that is a fair balance of interest. The other thing we did in GATT was that we said we are going to allow every human, every company, every product to have the same extension of their patent rights. However, we set out a perfectly illegitimate reason to give to a few drug companies a unique opportunity to not be included in the GATT legislation. So, therefore, we excluded a few pharmaceutical manufacturers, and we said to them that you are going to have an extra 3 years on your patent. You are not going to have any competition whatsoever in this particular drug marketing and in the sales of the particular drug. During the February hearing held by Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we had the evidence, we had the testimony of our U.S. Trade Ambassador, Ambassador Kantor, we had the Patent Office, and we had everyone representing this administration that we could think of say that this was never intended to be a part of the GATT Treaty. The negotiators never intended to carve out a special reason, or a special status, for a very few--if I might say, a handful--of drug manufacturers. Mr. President, during that testimony that day in late February of 1996, during all of the discussions that we have held on the floor of the U.S. Senate, during the committee meetings that have been addressing this issue, including the Finance Committee, there is not one scintilla of evidence--not one--that one individual has ever maintained that this was a deliberate act by the negotiators, that this was a deliberate act by the Congress of the United States to carve out this special exemption for a handful of drug manufacturers. We have competition ready to come to the marketplace. We have cheaper prices ready to be able to come into the marketplace to provide quality drugs at competitive prices--more than competitive prices. For us to believe that we can continue this great windfall, I think is very wrong indeed. I urge the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to proceed forthwith with a markup for this particular issue. He knows what the issues are. Mr. President, I further state that at the proper time on the proper legislative vehicle, I will offer to the Senate once again the opportunity to correct the record, once again the opportunity to set things right, because every day that we delay is another $5 million in profits to the pharmaceutical companies that make Zantac and these other drugs. We are delaying now about another 15 to 20 days at least because we are leaving on a 2-week recess tomorrow. That is another $75 million to $80 million for these drug companies in extra profits for them at this time. We had a vote in December, and we have seen since that time and since that vote another $450 million of profits being given to them in a windfall nature. I think the American people certainly are calling on us to be responsible to set the record straight and to admit that we made a mistake. I am going to give the Senate--and hopefully the other body--an opportunity to correct that mistake in the very near future. I will be offering that on the first legislative vehicle that I see the opportunity to attach it to after we return from our Easter break. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a true statesman. Carl Simpson Whillock was born on May 7, 1926, in the small town of Scotland, AR. In the nearly 70 years since, he has excelled in the realms of politics, academia, and private business. Carl's desire to serve the people of Arkansas surfaced at an early age. Just 2 years after receiving both his undergraduate and master's degrees from the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, Carl began a distinguished career of public service as a member of the Arkansas House of Representatives. He came to Washington in 1955 to serve as the executive assistant to the Honorable J.W. Trimble, U.S. Congressman from the third district of Arkansas. While working in Representative Trimble's office, Carl Whillock earned a law degree from George Washington University in 1960. After a 3-year stint in private law practice, he served as prosecuting attorney for the 14th Judicial District of Arkansas before beginning his career in academia at the University of Arkansas. Carl Whillock was the director for university relations and an assistant to the president during his 7\1/2\ years at Arkansas. He also taught part-time in the political science department. In 1964, Carl Whillock left academics to run my campaign for Governor of Arkansas, and I am happy to say he worked with me in the Governor's office for a short time after my election. But Carl soon returned to his beloved University of Arkansas as the vice president for governmental relations and public affairs. Carl's many years of work in the academic community were rewarded in 1978 when he was asked to become the president of Arkansas State University in Jonesboro. For the past 16 years, Carl has been the president of Arkansas Electric Cooperative and Arkansas Electric Cooperatives Inc. As he prepares to retire on the 1st of April, his colleagues remember him as a trusted friend, a revered mentor, and a gentle, gracious boss. Carl Whillock's management style has been praised throughout his many years in various positions of authority. He believes in hiring good people, and then giving them the space to do their jobs. His employees operate effectively and efficiently because Carl makes them feel comfortable and encourages them to bring their own style to the workplace. By all accounts, Carl Simpson Whillock is a success. The very mention of his name brings a smile to the faces of those who know him, and the words gentleman and good guy flow from their lips. After retirement, I am sure Carl will remain active as a member of the University of Arkansas' Board of Trustees. He has never been one to sit still for very long. He is always there to lend a hand. As Dennis Robertson, a long-time friend and employee says, ``Carl approaches life in a simple way. He does not get mad. He is warm, caring and above all sincere. We can all learn a lot from him.'' Carl Simpson Whillock--a true asset to the State of Arkansas. On behalf of all the people you have touched over these many years, congratulations on your retirement.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Reserving the right to object, Madam President. I will not object to my friend's request, but I would like to inquire of the managers as to the status of the legislation. Are we moving along with amendments? It seems like in the last hour or 2 we have made speeches as in morning business.

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, then if we are going to make speeches as in morning business, may I ask unanimous consent that after the distinguished Senator from Idaho has completed his statement, I be recognized for a 10-minute period.

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, my colleagues, Senators Chafee and Senator Brown, and I have submitted an amendment that every authority I have consulted says should already be the law but for a simple congressional mistake. According to our United States Trade Representative, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Food and Drug Administration and the Patent and Trademark Office, our amendment should have been part of the GATT implementing legislation known as the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Congress made a mistake, Madam President. We left the amendment out of the GATT legislation. We forgot. It is as simple as that. It has happened before, and it will undoubtedly happen again. The very unfortunate result of our error is that every day a few pharmaceutical companies are earning an extra $5 million a day, courtesy of the American taxpayer, the American consumer, the American veteran, and the American senior citizen. Today, however, we have a unique opportunity, Madam President, to correct that mistake. We could implement the law as it was intended, saving consumers billions of dollars and fulfilling our obligations under the GATT treaty, all in one stroke. Let us take this opportunity today to put our mistake behind us. Madam President, I know this issue is familiar to all of my colleagues. Last December we brought this amendment to the floor and sought a vote which we never got. There was an effort to kill the amendment with a sense-of-the-Senate resolution and call for future hearings. When I withdrew the amendment, along with my colleagues-- Senators Chafee and Brown--from consideration, I promised, like McArthur, to ``return.'' Today, my colleagues and I have returned to the floor of the Senate. Here is the single fact which I urge my colleagues to keep in mind. Ambassador Kantor testified only 2 weeks ago that the Pryor-Chafee- Brown amendment ``would do nothing more than fulfill our obligations to be faithful to what we negotiated in the GATT treaty.'' He confirmed that it would ``carry out the intent not only of the negotiations and what the Administration intended, but also what the Congress itself intended.'' Those were the words of our U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Mickey Kantor. In other words, Madam President, all of us in the Congress believed that the substance of this amendment was part of the GATT agreement which we enacted into law. We assumed at that time that the GATT transition provisions were universal in nature and scope, but we in fact neglected to include a specific, conforming amendment. As a result, if we do not accept this amendment, we are then deliberately carving out a special exemption from the GATT treaty for one single industry--indeed, for a small number of pharmaceutical companies within this single industry. As my friend and colleague--and almost seat mate--Senator Paul Simon of Illinois, has stated, ``This is as classic a case of public interest versus special interest as you could find.'' A very fine statement by Senator Simon. Madam President, I received a letter from several of my colleagues yesterday about this issue. But there is a misconception that they have raised and must be dispelled. I am certain they did not have the facts which I feel at this time must be discussed. In this letter, my colleagues write: The committee learned during the Judiciary hearing that because of ongoing patent litigation, no potential generic manufacturer of Zantac can expect to enter the market before September of this year, regardless of what Congress does or doesn't do. I am afraid that this allegation is in fact untrue. I am sure it will come as no surprise that it was the company called Glaxo and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association who made this allegation before the Judiciary Committee 2 weeks ago. What they neglected to share with our colleagues were some very critical facts-- facts which I hold in my hand. As Paul Harvey would say on the radio, Madam President, ``Here is the rest of the story.'' There is litigation over Zantac, which is the best selling prescription drug in the world. It is delayed because it was Glaxo--the company that has the patent--who asked the court to delay its ruling, thus denying all generic competition. I have in my hand a copy of the brief submitted by Glaxo's lawyers to the court. Madam President, should we not inquire into the reason that Glaxo gave the court for delaying action and for restraining immediate competition from a market after 17 years of monopoly protection and extremely high prices? It was simple. It was because of the GATT loophole. Glaxo told the court in its brief that it has a patent extension which would shield it from generic competition until the year 1997. Madam President, the reason Glaxo will not face any generic competition until 1997 is because of the very same GATT loophole we are trying to correct. Glaxo wants to delay the court. They want to delay action in the Congress because every day that we delay, Madam President, is another jackpot payday for Glaxo--and for every other company benefiting from this loophole. Let me reemphasize this point: The reason these companies are shielded from generic competition is that Congress made a mistake and forgot a conforming amendment when the GATT legislation was passed. The court is now delaying its ruling because we in the Senate have not acted on the Pryor-Chafee-Brown amendment. Every day that we delay is another day the court has no reason to act. Now we need to give the court that reason to act. As soon as we have enacted this amendment, the courts will take notice and have reason to act. They will have a statutory basis for allowing immediate generic competition for Zantac and other drugs on the market. As a result, we will see generic Zantac reach the market as quickly as possible at something like one-half of the price of brandname Zantac. So now we can see why Glaxo would have us believe we have plenty of time to act. They want us to delay. Why not? Every day is an extra $5 million in their pockets, courtesy of the American consumer and the American taxpayer. The companies opposed to our amendment are the very reasons why the courts are taking their time. But if we pass this amendment, the courts will act expeditiously--no ifs, no ands, and no buts. Madam President, we must also remember that there are a dozen other drugs affected by this GATT loophole, costing hundreds of millions of dollars more for the American consumer than they should. None of these products are affected by litigation, and all of these products would be available much more rapidly as generics once the amendment is enacted. Madam President, I mentioned the hearing held 2 weeks ago by the Judiciary Committee. The hearing did one thing and one thing only: It confirmed what we already knew--that Congress made a mistake. After a year of exhaustive review, discussion, and debate, we held a single 3- hour hearing and discovered once again that the Washington Post was right when they called this ``an error of omission.'' And the New York Times was right once again when they wrote on the morning after the hearing that ``Glaxo's trade loophole'' should be closed. Let me quote from that New York Times editorial: Congress finds it hard to remedy the simplest mistakes when powerful corporate interests are at stake. In 1994, when Congress approved a new trade pact with more than 100 other countries, it unintentionally handed pharmaceutical companies windfall profits. More than a year later, Congress has yet to correct this error. And most recently, Madam President, on March 6th, the Des Moines Register of Des Moines, IA, wrote that it is ``patent nonsense'' to let this ``costly congressional blunder'' go uncorrected, which ``Congress could correct in a jiffy.'' Let me conclude, Madam President, with the following observation: We have a vast body of evidence at our disposal from the U.S. Trade Representative, the FDA, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Patent Office, and the Congressional Record. That body of evidence shows that Congress made a mistake. Today is our opportunity to correct that mistake--to spare the American consumers unnecessary expenses and guarantee 100 percent equitable treatment for all American companies under the GATT treaty. The alternative is to ignore the evidence--to choose to side with a few drug companies. There were two Glaxo lobbyists actually testifying at last month's hearing. They happened to disagree with the U.S. Government, with our U.S. Trade Representative, with our Patent Office, and many others. I am asking today, on behalf of Senator Chafee, Senator Brown and myself, for this body to consider the possibility that Glaxo has a deep financial interest in this issue and may not be as objective as four or five executive agencies of our Federal Government. This is not a partisan issue. It is not a partisan choice. It never has been. It is about fixing a mistake. It is about doing right. It is about serving consumers. It is about taking on a special interest which has entered this fight and making certain that the public interest prevails. I thank the Chair for recognizing me. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, reserving the right to object----

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I understand the Chair had previously ruled. Therefore, I have no objection to the Senator's request.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, on February 28, the Postal Service recognized 50 years of Fulbright scholarships by issuing a commemorative stamp in honor of this outstanding program. Fittingly, the unveiling ceremony was held at the University of Arkansas, where Senator J. William Fulbright served as president. The Fulbright scholarships were established by the Congress in 1946 under legislation proposed by Senator Fulbright. They were intended to increase mutual understanding between the United States and countries worldwide. By anyone's measure, this program has been a great success. Each year, nearly 5,000 individuals are given the opportunity to broaden their professional or academic knowledge by studying or lecturing at renowned international universities, or conducting collaborative research with foreign countries. Since its inception, nearly a quarter million people have participated in the Fulbright program. The design of the stamp itself emphasizes the international exchange of students, scholars, artists, and other professionals that the scholarships facilitate. A compass laid over top of a human head symbolizes the power of the mind applied to all areas, while a decorative bookbinding paper background represents academics and the arts. Mr. President, J. William Fulbright of Arkansas served the public with great distinction for more than 30 years. He gave great thought and care to America's role in the world, and it is most fitting that the Postal Service has chosen to pay tribute to the international exchange program which bears his name. I know this stamp is a source of great pride not only to Senator Fulbright's family, but to all who have been associated with this special program. I hope the issuance of this commemorative stamp will help ensure another 50 years of Fulbright scholarships.

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 may respond now that I have the floor. I want to thank my friend from New Mexico. I have loved serving in this body. I have enjoyed so much my service with the distinguished Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from New York and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It has been a hope and a dream that I have hoped for all of my life. I have been one of the fortunate 1,800 and some odd people who have had this great privilege. So I thank my colleague very much. But the Senator and several of our colleagues have made reference during the discussion this afternoon of how many times witnesses forget, how many times they say, ``I don't know'' or, ``I don't recall.'' Let me ask my friend from New Mexico, what was the Senator doing 12 years ago? I am asking my friend, what was the Senator doing 12 years ago today?

Mr. PRYOR. Yes, 12 years ago today. Does the Senator recall who he talked to on the telephone?

Mr. PRYOR. The Senator was probably campaigning, but he does not recall specifically?

Mr. PRYOR. I was trying to bring brevity. Some of these events happened 10, 12, 15 years ago, a decade ago, 6 and 7 and 8 years ago. A lot of these people did not have an associate or maybe someone we might call a staff person to keep a diary, to keep a phone log, to keep records for them. And they are trying, to the very best of their ability, to come up here and tell the truth as they know the truth. Yet, many times they appear to be badgered before the committee day after day. Sometimes they are attempting to answer the question, and the counsel will not even give them that opportunity. I would just----

Mr. PRYOR. I would be glad to.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, who has the floor?

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, let me also respond to my friend from New Mexico. Earlier in the afternoon, we did a very quick summary of what the Senate has done in the year 1996 as compared to 1995. In fact, I do not have that sheet before me, but I think we have had--if I am not mistaken, I think the Senate this year, in 1996, has had 21 votes, total. In 1995, we had had 97 votes up until this time. So basically, the Senate, except for the Whitewater operation, has been pretty well, let us say, called to a halt. We have been waiting for all the primaries to get over, and we have been accommodating. We have been cooperative, et cetera. Also, I think earlier in the afternoon--I do not know if our friend from New Mexico was here--talking about the lack of cooperation from the White House--I hope, Mr. President, my friend will listen to this-- this committee has requested all documents covering an 18-month period--listen to this, please--any communication of any kind relating to any subject between the President, First Lady, any present or former White House employee, and any employee of the RTC and several dozen named individuals. The next group, the committee authorized a subpoena asking for all telephone calls--I heard the Senator from New Mexico, my friend, a while ago talking about his own area code. What is that area code?

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I do not know how that would compare with Iran-Contra or some of the other hearings we have had, but I tell you that is a lot of people to depose. Mr. President, 121 witnesses have now testified before the Whitewater committee. The Whitewater committee has subpoenaed all long-distance telephone records, domestic telephone records, calls by the White House, and they have examined 45,000 pages of White House documents. I think this is an unheard of amount of evidence that they are trying to go over and over and over. Mr. President, also I noted in the Washington Post, finally-- finally--the newspapers and press are about to become aware of an issue that I think is also critical to this story, and that is the amount of legal fees, the amount of legal fees that many of these witnesses are being forced to bear. Most of them could not afford these fees. There were stories this morning in the Post about some of those individuals and some of the tremendous, burdensome, and very high, tremendous legal fees that these individuals are being now asked to assume personally-- not paid for by the Government, but personally. This will bankrupt them into perpetuity. It will destroy their financial lives and their financial well being. And I hope, Mr. Leader, that we will see a higher degree of sensitivity to those concerns.