The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“WHITEWATER DEVELOPMENT CORP. AND RELATED MATTERS --MOTION TO PROCEED” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S2033-S2036 on March 14, 1996.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
WHITEWATER DEVELOPMENT CORP. AND RELATED MATTERS --MOTION TO PROCEED
The Senate resumed consideration of the motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 1:30 p.m. having arrived, there will now be one-half hour of debate, equally divided, prior to voting on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to Senate Resolution 227.
Mr. BREAUX. With that understanding, I yield myself 5 minutes in opposition to the pending motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I was thinking about the Whitewater proceedings and the stalemate we have on the floor of the U.S. Senate with how to proceed. I think the American public really has an interest in this, not just the two political parties, Democrats and Republicans.
When I talk to people back in Louisiana and we talk about this Whitewater investigation, most of my constituents are not really certain or sure what all of this is about. They know there are some accusations that have been presented and that there have been some denials of those. But most people today are very confused about the entire subject that has become known as Whitewater.
I think the American people have an interest in this that is a superior interest, even more superior than the interests of the Democratic Party members on my side and the Republican Party members on that side of the aisle. There is an American interest in this which goes far beyond politics, and I really think that is the solution we should be seeking as we try to resolve this issue on how to handle the so-called Whitewater affair. What do we need to do that puts the American people's interests in the front seat and the political parties' interests in the back seat for a change?
Let me suggest what I think the people in my State and the people in America really would like to see. They would like to see this thing resolved. They would like to see it resolved outside the political arena. They would like to see it resolved. The people's interests are finding out what really happened, how to resolve it, and, if anything bad happened, that it will not happen again, and it is not who gets the credit or the blame.
What we are doing in this debate is arguing about which party is going to get the proper advantage and the manner in which the Whitewater affair is brought to conclusion. That should not be what determines how we act and what we do.
Let me make a suggestion of some of the things that I have heard from the people in my State. They have told me, ``Senator, when politicians investigate politicians, it produces political results, especially in an election year.'' That is pretty simple and pretty accurate and pretty easy for people to understand. When politicians investigate politicians, it produces political results, especially in a political election year. That is why we had such a difficult time trying to bring this to a resolution that makes sense to the average American, who is less concerned about the politics of all of this, but is far more concerned about just getting it behind us.
If wrong was done, it should be punished. If it was not done, we should go on with the other problems facing the Congress and not spend the time we have been spending debating this issue endlessly while other problems continue to fester.
Let me suggest that the Congress has already spoken about how to get this done outside of the political arena. Does anybody remember what the Congress did and why we did it when we created an independent counsel? I remember the arguments, and I thought they made a lot of sense. The argument for doing that in investigating Whitewater was simple. Let us take the politics out of it and make sure we do not have politicians investigating politicians, producing political results. Therefore, this Senate created the independent counsel, and the independent counsel has been adequately funded. There is no term limit. They could go on forever and always until they bring a conclusion to this whole case.
As we stand here on the floor of the Senate, there is a trial going on, for gosh sakes, in the State of Arkansas on Whitewater. People have been indicted. There is a Federal prosecutor who is presenting the evidence in a court of law, in a Federal court. They are moving to a conclusion of this, and it is being done outside of the political arena.
We have a former Reagan Justice Department official, Kenneth Starr, who was established as the independent counsel. We said we are going to take it out of Congress and out of politics and give it to an independent counsel who does not have any political baggage. He is not a Democratic person, a Democratic chairman, or a Democratic ranking member, or a Republican chairman, or Republican ranking member; he is an independent counsel. What did we do? We have given that person unlimited funding. Does any agency in the Government get that? Not the defense or anything else. He has unlimited funding. He has a professional staff of over 130 people that have been working since they began in January 1994. Guess how much money they have spent? They have spent $25.6 million investigating this one issue. Yet, we are spending time on the floor of the Senate saying, no, we like the politics so much that we just cannot let it go. We like the investigation so much, so let us extend it, and we need a little bit more money to continue doing that.
We spent $400,000 in the Banking Committee in 1994 investigating, and
$950,000 in 1995 with the special Whitewater Committee investigating it. The Senate spent $1.3 million-plus investigating this as a political interest for everybody in this body.
Let me suggest that what the American people want--not what Congress wants--which is what Congress should want, is to bring this to a conclusion, bring it to a conclusion in a fair manner, prosecute and convict those who did wrong, exonerate those who have been falsely accused, if there are any; and if there has been no wrongdoing, finish it. The way to finish it is not by a continuation of politics as usual. I am not impugning anybody who has served hours over here, but it is time for the Congress to recognize what the American people want, and what they would like to see is a nonpolitical conclusion. A nonpolitical conclusion says that politics be damned; if somebody did something wrong, they will be prosecuted. If they did not, they will not.
I think the American people recognize that, in a political election year with a November Presidential election, it is not going to be possible for a political investigation to produce anything but political results. The only way to ensure that that does not happen is to continue to allow the independent counsel, which we all created just for this purpose, to do his job. He has spent $25 million doing it already. Let them complete it. No one has suggested that they are not doing their job. Then, when that investigation is over, completed, at least the American public will be able to say, you know, they checked it out and they did it in the right fashion, and the politicians did not do it, the professionals did it.
I urge rejection of the motion.
Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Florida.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, there was a recent ``Nightline'' program that dealt with a new book on the market that, I believe, is entitled
``Blood Sport.'' It is a book that was written by an individual by the name of James Stewart, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author. One of the books he wrote was entitled ``Den of Thieves.'' He has an impeccable set of credentials.
My understanding of the genesis of this book is that Susan Thomases, an attorney and close personal friend of the Clintons, went to Mr. Stewart and suggested it for the purpose of, as my colleague from Louisiana had indicated, trying to come to a nonpolitical conclusion.
So maybe where I ought to start in summing up what this ``Blood Sport'' is all about is going to the last comments I had intended to make which had to do with the conclusion that is reached in Mr. Stewart's book. I am going to have some quotes. The quotes are going to come actually from ``Nightline,'' not necessarily from the book, because Ted Koppel, in essence, asked Mr. Stewart what was the conclusion that he drew as a result of doing this book. He said it was
``a study in the acquisition and wielding of power and, in the end, a study of the arrogance of power--the things they can do and get away with as an elected official and then how honest and candid they are when questioned about it.''
It is interesting that at the time when there seems to be more and more interest developing in the country with respect to what went on with Whitewater, we had this ``Nightline'' show again the other night, this new book ``Blood Sport''--and now Time magazine apparently is going to be doing a series for 3 weeks about Whitewater--that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle now seem to be an extension of the White House strategy to deal with the issue. All through this process they have delayed, they have misinformed, they have done everything possible, frankly, to move it to a point where they would be able to say ``this is political.''
So what are we supposed to do? Is this because this is a political year, we are supposed to stop the pursuit of truth?
Again, the charge that I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have opened themselves up for is that they are now an extension of the activities of the White House. They are going to do whatever they can to keep us from moving forward on this issue.
In his book, Mr. Stewart kind of outlined what he saw as the mindsets of the Clintons with respect to Whitewater. Again he said on
``Nightline'' that they had ``an attitude bordering on negligence from the beginning,'' that they had the ``belief that someone else will take care of us because of our power as high elected officials in Arkansas.'' They had ``a willingness to accept favors from those who were regulated by the State.''
I am sure that the chairman remembers the hearings that we had with Beverly Bassett Schaffer, who was an individual who was appointed to a position of securities commissioner, I believe, in Arkansas and who received a phone call from Mrs. Clinton, acting as an attorney for Madison, asking the question, ``Who should I send some papers with regard to the preferred stock issue, who should I send those to in your office?'' Mind you, there has been a lot said from the First Lady's perspective that she was trying to do everything possible to make sure that there was no impression created that she would be using her position for her personal gain.
I ask you, if there really was a concern about this, why would you risk shattering everything that you were trying to accomplish by making a phone call down to the commissioner herself, and say, ``Who should I send it to in your office?'' It makes absolutely no sense.
On some of the basic underlying issues, again, author Stewart flatly contradicts Hillary Clinton. He said, ``It is simply not true'' that the Clintons had no active role in the Whitewater investment. To the contrary, Mrs. Clinton ``singlehandedly took control of the investment'' in 1986 once the McDougal empire began to crumble. She handles everything from loan renewals to correspondence. She also had possession of all the records, many of which, by the way, are now missing.
Mr. Stewart points out that the Clintons are likely guilty of at least one Federal crime, the same Federal crime for which the McDougals are now on trial.
Mind you, the reason I did this this way today was that I wanted to use an unbiased source, if you will. The friends on the other side of the aisle say we are being political about this. I am responding to both a book and to a series of articles that will take place, the first of which was in Time magazine this week, and ``Nightline.'' I mean, this is what he is saying, that the crime that I was referring to a moment ago is knowingly inflating the value of their share of Whitewater investment to a financial institution.
In a 1987 financial disclosure statement, Mrs. Clinton listed the value of their share of Whitewater as nearly double the bank's recent estimates, and she did this to get more money to shore up a failing investment. If that is proven, that is in fact is fraud.
There also are some interesting comments with respect to the Foster suicide. Stewart believes that the reasons Mr. Foster listed in his suicide note do not actually reflect the true nature of all that was bothering him at the time, and notably again the author said there were things ``so serious that he''--Foster--``will not dare write them down.'' Those things involve--again, this is what the author is suggesting--those things involve the First Lady, Whitewater, and ethical violations which put Web Hubbell in a Federal prison.
Mr. Stewart also believes, as I do, that it is entirely possible that the billing records that mysteriously turned up in the White House residence were formerly in Vince Foster's office. If that is so, one or more felonies have been committed, and it is just a question of figuring out who the guilty parties are.
With respect to damage control efforts, according, again, to the author, Mr. Stewart, after White House staff had introduced the notion of cooperating fully with the investigators, Mrs. Clinton interrupted and said--and I am quoting him now as he is quoting here--``I am not going to have people pouring over our documents. After all, we are the President.''
The suggestion here is that by virtue of the grandeur of power of their office, they should not have to endure the experience of legitimate investigation. In essence, it says to me that the First Lady believes she and the President are above the law.
A moment ago I read the conclusion--I am going to state it again--of what Mr. Stewart's book is about. He said it was ``a study in the acquisition and wielding of power and, in the end, a study of the arrogance of power--the things that they can do and get away with as an elected official, and then how honest and candid they are when questioned about it.''
If any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are listening, I would ask you to ponder the final words of Mr. Stewart--I believe an unbiased source, a source that Mrs. Clinton and her friend Susan Thomases believes to be evenhanded and capable of finding out the truth about their involvement in Whitewater. He said, ``The truth is important in our society. Just as important in our society, I do not think that you can put a price tag on these things.'' And then he goes on to say that if you feel the investigation has been harsh or nasty, the reason for that--again quoting him--``is because the truth was never honored in the first place.''
So I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that it is time to quit filibustering. It is time to stop being an extension of the White House strategy. It is time to allow the American people to get the facts and to let them draw their own conclusions as to who is right and who is wrong.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is the time situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 7 minutes remaining. The Senator from New York has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. President, I think that a very significant statement was made on the floor of the Senate yesterday by the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye, as we know, chaired the Iran-Contra hearings. He served on the Watergate hearings. And he said yesterday in the course of his remarks--and I am now quoting him--``This Republican extension request''--referring to the resolution that is before us--``is unprecedented, and it is unreasonable.''
Let me repeat that. It ``is unprecedented, and it is unreasonable. The U.S. Senate has never before conducted an open-ended political investigation of a sitting American President during a Presidential election year.''
He is correct on that. This is unprecedented in all the previous inquiries and investigations. My distinguished colleague from Connecticut earlier in the debate put in a table which indicated that all of those inquiries have had fixed dates for their conclusion.
Senator Inouye later went on in his statement--referring back to the work of the Iran-Contra Ccommittee, which completed its work actually in significantly less time than is being proposed for this committee--
to say, and I quote him: ``Yes, there were requests by Democrats and Republicans''--this is back at the time when we were going to undertake the Iran-Contra hearings.
Yes, there were requests by Democrats and Republicans that we seek an indefinite time limit on the hearings, but the chairman of the House committee, Representative Hamilton, and I, in conjunction with our vice chairs, strongly recommended against an open-ended investigation. We sought to ensure that our investigation was completed in a timely fashion to preserve the committee's bipartisanship and to avoid any exploitation of President Reagan during an election year.
At that time, one of the most consistent spokesman that the Iran-
Contra inquiry not extend into the election year and not be open ended, as some Democrats, who were in control of the Congress, were intending, one of the most consistent exponents of a limitation in that regard was Senator Dole, who repeatedly, both in this Chamber and in conversations with the media, underscored the point of having a closing date and keeping the matter out of the Presidential election year. What happened was that the Democrats responded to Senator Dole and, in fact, not only agreed to an ending date but moved that date forward to get it even further away from the election year. In fact, Senator Dole recognized and acknowledged that in the course of debate in this Chamber.
We have a comparable situation here. In fact, Senator Dole said:
I am heartened by what I understand to be the strong commitment of both the chairman and vice chairman to avoid a fishing expedition. I am pleased to note that as a result of a series of discussions which have involved myself, the majority leader and the chairman and vice chairman designate of the committee, we have changed the date on which the committee's authorization will expire.
In fact, what they did was they moved it up. That was thanks very much to Senator Inouye's leadership, who, as I said, stated yesterday, and let me just quote him again:
We sought to ensure that our investigation was completed in a timely fashion to preserve the committee's bipartisanship and to avoid any exploitation of President Reagan during an election year.
When this resolution was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote, an essential premise of it was the ending date of February 29. Many of us believed the committee could have completed its work within that timeframe.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SARBANES. I yield myself the remaining amount of time. Is there 2 additional minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two additional minutes.
Mr. SARBANES. Senator Inouye indicated yesterday that the Iran-Contra Committee intensified its hearings as it approached its deadline in order to complete the work. They did 21 days of hearings in the last 23 days.
This committee, in contrast, in the last 2 weeks of February, before the February 29 date, did 1 day of hearing--in the last 2 weeks. The Iran-Contra Committee did 21 out of 23 days. This committee, the Whitewater Committee, has worked at a much more intense pace at an earlier time. Back last summer, in 3 weeks in the latter part of July and the first part of August, the committee held 13 days of hearings.
The minority leader, Senator Daschle, did not put out a proposal: Well, you have reached February 29. This is the end of it. In an effort to be reasonable and accommodating, he said, we will agree to an extension of 5 weeks in which to conduct hearings, an additional month beyond that in which to submit the report. Let me point out this committee itself held 13 days of hearings during a 3-week period last summer. The Iran-Contra Committee held 21 days of hearings in less than a 4-week period in July and August 1987. So an intense hearing schedule of that sort is clearly possible. It has been done before. It could be done again.
I submit that the proposal offered by the minority leader is a reasonable proposal. It is an effort to provide an accommodation in this matter, allow the committee to continue its work and bring it to an appropriate conclusion, and avoid moving this thing into an election year with a perception, increasing perception, that it is being done for partisan political reasons.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I do not think it behooves anyone to denigrate a proposal to accomplish that which I believe the American people want and are entitled to. More importantly, it is our constitutional responsibility to get the facts and hold these hearings.
The offer put forth by our colleagues on the other side is inadequate. It is a step in the right direction, but it is inadequate because there are key witnesses, facts, and information that will not be available to us by April 5. They just will not be available to us. There is no way, that witnesses who are presently on trial, or who will be called to testify while the trial is taking place will be available to this committee. Their proposal will place us in the position that, come April 5, we will be back here and they will say once again you are doing it.
That is why we have to reject it. I hope we can come to some kind of meaningful understanding that would give us the ability to go forth and have, at least, a reasonable opportunity of getting as many of the facts as we can, and avoid the political season and the conventions.
Now, my colleague, Senator Mack, has pointed out that much of the delay has been occasioned because the administration has not promptly produced--and/or people who work for the administration--documents that were subpoenaed and requested.
Second, this is not some political conspiracy. There have been nine people who have pled guilty already--nine. David Hale pled guilty. He was a former judge, friend of the Clintons, and friend of their business partners, the McDougals; Matthews pled guilty to trying to bribe Hale; Fitzhugh, he worked in the bank, pled guilty; Robert Palmer, real estate appraiser for the Madison bank, pled guilty; Web Hubbell, former law partner of the First Lady, pled guilty; Chris Wade, former real estate broker for Whitewater, pled guilty; Neal Ainley, former president of the Perry County Bank--by the way, that is the bank that lent Governor Clinton $180,000 for his 1990 gubernatorial race--
pled guilty; Stephen Smith, former Clinton aide, former president and coowner of the Madison Bank and Trust that was owned by Governor Tucker, he pled guilty; Larry Kuca, former director, Madison Financial Corp., pled guilty.
Now, let me tell you, we are going to attempt to bring a number of these people in to get the complete story. I have to say it seems to me that my colleagues have become an extension of the White House in attempting to keep the facts from coming to the American people. If they want to do that, then they are going to have to take the onus of these things. Again, this is just the beginning. This is the third time we have come to the Senate for an extension, and we run into this filibuster, this stonewall. The New York Times says it is silly. It is silly.
The Washington Post says just because Democrats want to bring this to an end does not mean it will end. The people are entitled to the facts.
We have offered a compromise and I think it is reasonable--4 months, an extension for 4 months for the public hearings. This proposal would give us an opportunity to do our job, and that is to get all the facts and to present them to the people as best we can. We may not be able to get all of them, but at least we can do the best we can.
Finally, this was an undertaking that was voted overwhelmingly, 96 to 3. To attempt to turn this, now, into a political witch hunt, which is how it has been characterized, is wrong and it is improper. We have not been able to complete our work because there has been a conscious effort to shield the facts from the committee and the American people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. Res. 227.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to S. Res. 227 regarding the Whitewater extension.
Alfonse D'Amato, Trent Lott, C.S. Bond, Fred Thompson,
Slade Gorton, Don Nickles, Paul Coverdell, Spencer
Abraham, Chuck Grassley, Conrad Burns, Rod Grams,
Richard G. Lugar, Mike DeWine, Mark Hatfield, Orrin G.
Hatch, and Thad Cochran.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and the nays are ordered under rule XXII.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] and the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] are necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] is absent on official business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who desire to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 46, as follows:
YEAS--51
AbrahamAshcroftBondBrownBurnsCampbellChafeeCoatsCochranCohenCoverdellCraigD'AmatoDeWineDomeniciFairclothFristGortonGrammGramsGrassleyGreggHatchHatfieldHelmsHutchisonInhofeJeffordsKassebaumKempthorneKylLottLugarMackMcCainMcConnellMurkowskiNicklesPresslerRothSantorumShelbySimpsonSmithSnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonThurmondWarner
NAYS--46
AkakaBaucusBidenBingamanBoxerBradleyBreauxBryanBumpersByrdConradDaschleDoddDorganExonFeingoldFeinsteinFordGlennGrahamHarkinHeflinHollingsInouyeJohnstonKennedyKerreyKerryKohlLautenbergLeahyLevinLiebermanMikulskiMoseley-BraunMurrayNunnPellPryorReidRobbRockefellerSarbanesSimonWellstoneWyden
NOT VOTING--3
BennettDoleMoynihan
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ayes are 51, the nays are 46. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, thank you very much.
____________________
