Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Under a previous order, there will be two consecutive rollcall votes beginning at 9:45 tomorrow morning. The first will be on the Hatch amendment regarding the White House Travel Office, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the Reid amendment. Following those votes, the Senate will remain on the Treasury-postal appropriations bill, and it is hoped we will complete action on that matter as early as possible so that the Senate may begin consideration of the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty during Thursday's session. The majority leader has announced that rollcall votes will occur throughout the day on Thursday and Senators should plan their schedules accordingly.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I have no objection to temporarily setting aside the Kassebaum amendment.

Mr. SHELBY. The Senator from Nevada asked unanimous consent. What we would like to know is, where are the Senator and Senator Kassebaum on the amendment?

Mr. SHELBY. Reserving the right to object, I would like to check with Senator Kassebaum on her amendment, and also Senator Wyden, who has been conferring with her, before we do that.

Mr. SHELBY. I am glad to withhold.

Mr. SHELBY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendments were agreed to.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered and agreed to, en bloc, and that any accompanying statements be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the subcommittee has included the $500,000 for the reimbursement of the Travel Office employees terminated by the White House in May 1993. And why? I want to explain that briefly. Over 3 years later, we are attempting to offset the cost of the tremendous legal fees that these individuals, I believe, were wrongfully forced to assume. The provision here would pay the attorney's fees and costs they incurred with respect to that termination. Why do we need this legislation? In October 1993, as part of the fiscal year 1994 transportation appropriations bill, the Congress authorized the payment of $150,000 for the legal bills of the five White House Travel Office employees who, after being summarily fired, were placed on administrative leave and later transferred to other Federal agencies. This sum, $150,000, was insufficient to completely cover the legal costs of the five employees and did not address the attorney's fees of the other two fired Travel Office employees because they were still under investigation. Both employees have since been exonerated of any wrongdoing, and I believe they deserve similar reimbursement for the extraordinary and unnecessary legal expenses they were required to incur. Mr. Dale's attorneys' costs alone are close to half a million dollars. This is a unique case, to say the least. Each claim against the United States should be judged on a case-by-case basis, and it is not the intent of this provision in this bill to set a precedent that in every case the payment of attorney's fees and costs is justified. What is the justification of the attorney's fees here? I believe the firing of the White House employees, and especially Mr. Dale, was one of the most appalling abuses of power that I have ever seen, because I think it shows what little regard the White House has had for the plight of these loyal, dedicated public servants and their families. And it was totally unnecessary, which makes it even worse. The White House could have fired the Travel Office without as much as a whimper. And yet, the White House felt compelled to devise a strategy that would blunt the claims of nepotism and political motivation that would certainly follow replacing a nonpartisan, career Travel office with Little Rock business associates, friends and relatives. Now, after several years of investigation that has sometimes raised issues of constitutional dimension--claims of executive privilege, contempt citations--the facts make clear that: No. 1, a concerted effort was undertaken in the White House and by close friends and associates of the President and First Lady to take over the Travel Office. No. 2, it was not sufficient to simply fire the career civil servants serving in the Office, which it was the prerogative of the White House to do. Instead, White House staff colluded to raise false claims of criminal wrongdoing against the Travel Office staff to justify what was purely a political move to benefit friends and associates of the President and First Lady. No. 3, the White House improperly used the FBI to initiate a criminal investigation against the White House Travel staff based solely on the allegations of the President's cousin, Catherine Cornelius, who admittedly intended to run the White House Travel Office once the career employees were ousted. No. 4, the White House publicly made allegations of criminal wrongdoing and financial mismanagement before an accounting audit was ever completed on the Travel Office. No. 5, the seven long-time career employees were never given an opportunity to respond to the allegations or answer the accusations made against them--they were given minutes notice of their termination, and almost immediately escorted off the White House premises by, none other than Craig Livingstone, the head of White House Personnel Security. No. 6, the GAO found in its May 1994 report that while senior White House officials said the terminations were based on ``findings of serious financial management weaknesses, we noted that individuals who had personal and business interests in the Travel Office created the momentum and ultimately led to the examination of the Travel Office operations.'' No. 7, the GAO also agreed with the White House's own Management Review of the Travel Office affair that ``the public acknowledgment of the criminal investigation had the effect of tarnishing the employees' reputations, and the existence of the criminal investigation caused the employees to retain legal counsel, reportedly at considerable expense.'' I am saddened to see that the President went back on his commitment to support reimbursing the Travel Office employees. In January of this year, Mike McCurry, the President's spokesman and Press Secretary made it clear that the President was not only sorry for the treatment of Mr. Dale and his colleagues, but that he would sign a bill to reimburse them for their legal costs. It appears now that the President intends to make a political statement out of their misfortune. Upset with congressional investigations into Whitewater and the Travelgate matter itself, he now intends to hold these long-time career employees hostage to his political posturing. It was not enough that they were used as an excuse to give his friends and relatives Government jobs. It was not enough that these employees were accused of criminal conduct without a shred of evidence, other than the allegations of a 24-year-old relative. It was not enough that these employees were subject to IRS audits, that their FBI files were improperly requested as late as seven months after they were fired. Recall that it was Craig Livingstone who escorted the Travel Office employees out of the White House in May of 1993. We are now supposed to believe that he was not aware that Billy Dale was not working in the White House when his own office requested Mr. Dale's FBI file 7 months later in December of that year? It was not enough that Mr. Dale was acquitted after only 2 hours of deliberation by the jury. Two hours. The man was acquitted. And what was the White House response? What was the President's personal lawyer doing on all the morning talk shows? He accused Mr. Dale of accepting a plea bargain. Talk about insult to injury. This decent, loyal employee is set-up by the White House, and then when he is acquitted in a court of law by a jury of his peers, the President's personal attorney gets on national television and implies that Mr. Dale is a criminal that tried to get off easy. Why is the White House so intent on destroying Billy Dale? The White House has every reason to be embarrassed by their actions, every reason to want to avoid talking about Billy Dale--but it is an absolute outrage, that the President of the United States would seek to use this man as a foil for his own political gain. It is wrong. It is unjust. It is unkind, uncharitable, and indecent. The Senators' amendment, Senators Reid and Levin, is, therefore, misplaced and I urge my colleagues to vote against it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 5256, As Modified

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the Wyden amendment contains direct spending and revenue legislation which would increase the deficit by $85 million for the period 2002 through 2006. At this point, I raise a point of order, pursuant to section 202 of House Concurrent Resolution 67, the concurrent resolution of the budget for the fiscal year 1996. I raise the budget point of order.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I will speak to this in a second. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the consideration of the committee amendment on page 80 regarding abortion funding there be 1 hour of debate prior to a motion to table, to be equally divided between Senators Nickles and Boxer, and that no other action occur prior to the motion to table. This has been cleared with Senator Kerrey.

Mr. SHELBY. The CBO, not the majority staff, is where this number comes from, $85 million that is a violation of the rule. Not the majority staff but the Congressional Budget Office itself.

Mr. SHELBY. If the Senator from Oregon will yield for a correction?

Mr. SHELBY. We have an oral statement from the Budget Committee staff that this violates the concurrent resolution and will cost $85 million. They scored it that way.

Mr. SHELBY. If the Senator from Oregon will yield?

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Operations of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 11, at 2 p.m.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this, again, is a technical and conforming amendment which is necessary to conform with the committee action, striking section 116. It has been cleared on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I have a number of amendments I will offer that are either technical in nature or necessary to change the bill because of events which have occurred since the bill was reported or are of a noncontroversial nature. All of these amendments, I understand, have been cleared with Senator Kerrey's staff.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this is a technical amendment which corrects an initial printing error. It has been cleared on both sides. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. SHELBY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.