[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 22 (Thursday, March 3, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                           WHITE HOUSE ETHICS

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, according to Webster's Dictionary, the word 
``independent'' means, ``not subject to control by others; not looking 
to others for one's opinions or for guidance in conduct.''
  I cite this definition because the last time I checked, the 
Resolution Trust Corporation is supposed to be an independent agency--
underscore the word ``independent .''
  But, in light of recent press accounts, it appears I may have to do 
some more research, or Webster's may have to revise its definition.
  Last week, we learned that Robert Altman, the Acting CEO and No. 2 
political appointee at the Treasury Department, met with White House 
political officials, allegedly to give them a ``head's up'' on the 
RTC's civil investigation into Madison Guaranty.
  This morning, I think in a bit of damage control, there was a story 
in the Washington Post, front page story, ``Treasury Officials Told 
White House Status of S&L Probe,'' told about other meetings. I think 
they did not want this to come out in some committee investigation so 
they somehow got it to the Washington Post.
  Realizing his blunder, Mr. Altman subsequently and very belatedly, as 
pointed out in another column by William Safire called, ``The 
Whitewater Coverup''--these are all today's clippings--recused himself.
  Is that not great? We do not know how many contacts he has really 
had, we do not know who he has talked to outside the administration--
lawyers, maybe representing the White House, the President, whether he 
has talked to the U.S. attorney in Little Rock who recused herself 
after a late, late hour. So he recused himself from the RTC matter 
after almost 11 months. He finally understands it was bad judgment.
  Today, we read that top officials of the Treasury Department, after 
the supposedly independent RTC asked the Justice Department last year 
to investigate possible criminal activity involving Madison, met twice 
with members of the White House Whitewater brain-trust--Bernard 
Nussbaum, big key player in the Watergate investigation years ago; 
Bruce Lindsey; and Mark Gearan; and who knows who else. According to 
news accounts, the Treasury officials gave the White House staffers a 
report on the status of the RTC's investigation and informed them that 
the President and Mrs. Clinton were named in the RTC referral, though 
not accused of any wrongdoing.
  Needless to say, the average American citizen who was either named in 
a RTC criminal referral or subject of a RTC civil investigation would 
never have received such high-level cooperation from the very people 
charged with conducting the investigations.
  You cannot tell me somebody from Colorado or Kansas could get that 
treatment if they had a RTC matter pending. They would bring all these 
people down and give us a ``heads up.'' No, it would not have happened.
  So, a dangerous pattern seems to be emerging.
  During last year's Travelgate fiasco, overly eager White House 
staffers raised eyebrows by pressuring a top FBI official to attend a 
White House ``political strategy'' session, allegedly to coordinate a 
press response to the burgeoning number of media inquiries. 
Unfortunately, the supposedly independent FBI went along with this 
charade--and I always thought the FBI was independent--in changing an 
FBI press release. They changed the FBI press release to suit the White 
House political needs.
  I have never heard of that before as long as I have been here.
  Today, White House staffers are adopting a similar ploy, saying there 
was nothing wrong with Treasury-White House meetings: We were told that 
they were simply sessions to coordinate responses to press inquiries, 
and now belatedly again ``Mack'' McLarty, the Chief of Staff, has 
issued a memo: You cannot do this anymore. All this time, after all the 
news: You cannot do this anymore because they have caught us. Do not do 
it anymore.
  That brings me to another word. We have defined the word 
``independent.'' Let us take the word ``judgment.''
  In light of recent news reports, it is becoming increasingly clear 
that good judgment is in short supply among White House and top 
administration officials. No doubt about it, you are asking for big, 
big trouble and showing some stunningly bad judgment when you start 
mixing politics with law enforcement. It is only fair to excuse a 
misstep or two. We all make mistakes. But when bad judgment becomes the 
rule rather than the exception, and when those involved will not admit 
their own mistakes, it may be time for a little White House 
housecleaning.
  Finally, a third word comes to mind--``coverup.'' If the White House 
has nothing to hide about Whitewater--and that is what they have been 
saying for months; that is what they said in the campaign: Nothing to 
it, just a little transaction--then why all the meetings? Why all the 
panic? Why all the behind-the-scenes machinations? Why negotiate a 
subpoena to shield Whitewater documents from public scrutiny?
  The public cannot get access to the Whitewater documents because they 
negotiated this subpoena several months ago now. So the public is shut 
out. And why put yourself in the dangerous position of being charged 
with compromising what are supposed to be independent civil and 
criminal investigations?
  Coverup is a tough word, but the consequences of a coverup can be 
even tougher. Many of us learned this in the Nixon administration, in 
Watergate. One of the prosecutors there was Mr. Nussbaum. You would 
think he would have learned that lesson and would be out saying: We 
cannot do this. And look what happened to the Nixon administration. He 
apparently is teaching a course on how to do it, if you can get away 
with it.
  Mr. President, I do not know what to make of the recently disclosed 
White House RTC-Treasury shenanigans, but I do know Congress has an 
obligation to ensure that supposedly independent law enforcement 
agencies are just that--independent. And for Congress to punt on its 
oversight responsibilities is a disservice to the American people and 
exposes Congress to the charge that we are willing accomplices--we do 
not care; we do not want to have any hearings; we do not want to hear 
what was referred to as a ``nonindependent counsel'' this morning by 
William Safire in the New York Times.
  We have had the chairman of the Banking Committee say: Well, after 
the independent counsel finishes his work, whenever that may be, then 
if we are not satisfied--``if,'' that means if the Democrats are not 
satisfied--then we might look into it with a congressional 
investigation.
  So we are at a loss. We are the minority party. We know if 
Republicans had the White House, there would be 15 hearings going on 
right now--maybe not 15, maybe a half a dozen. They would be every day, 
every day, every day--drip, drip, drip. And we have already asked the 
Congressional Research Service to take a look at the last 12 years. We 
found about 20 hearings conducted when Republicans had the White House 
and Democrats controlled the Congress. They could not wait to have 
congressional hearings. But now we are told, with a solemn look: Oh, we 
cannot do this. We do not want to interfere with the investigation.
  We have oversight responsibilities. We do not know how else to 
proceed, in the minority. We only have one thing we can do and that is 
to block nominations, to try, to hope the Democratic leadership will do 
what they should do and have a full-blown hearing without compromising 
anything that any independent or nonindependent counsel might do.
  So we have, 43 of us out of 44, written to the distinguished majority 
leader yesterday to say we are going to object to proceeding to the 
nomination of Ricki Tigert, President Clinton's nominee to chair the 
supposedly independent FDIC, unless the Senate Banking Committee has an 
opportunity to thoroughly examine the RTC's handling of its civil 
investigation into Madison. I think today's shocking revelations only 
serve to underscore the need for such an examination, and more broadly, 
for hearings on the entire Madison/Whitewater affair.
  I did not pick out too many clippings today, but I have already 
referred to two--the New York Times, ``Whitewater Coverup''; Washington 
Post, ``Treasury Officials Told White House Status of S&L Probe.'' The 
New York Times, they did not do much, ``Justice Official Is Questioned 
About Billings at Rose Firm.''
  Washington Post, ``Hillary Clinton's Role in Lawsuit Appears 
Larger.''
  Washington Times, ``Prosecutor to Re-examine Foster Suicide Ruling.''
  Washington Post, ``Hubbell Confirms Questioning, Asserts Innocence.''
  Washington Times, ``Hubbell `Denies' Rose Firm Probe.'' ``Altman Gets 
Close to the Heat. White House Surprised by Billing Questions.''
  These are just a few of the clippings in papers we get in our office. 
It seems to me the media is also belatedly beginning to focus on what I 
consider to be a very important matter.
  But when will Congress act? When will the majority--it has been 
reported in the Safire column that the House has been told by the 
Speaker: No hearings under any circumstances, any time.
  It seems to me that may--that is borderline.
  So I think there is no way we can have a rehearing on the nomination 
of Mr. Hubbell, or Mr. Altman. There is no way we can do that to check 
that.
  But, I ask unanimous consent the letter be reprinted in the Record 
immediately after my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. DOLE. And I ask unanimous consent that stories and commentaries 
from today's Washington Post, New York Times, and Washington Times, be 
printed in the Record as well--not the entire stories, but the 
headlines.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. DOLE. I suggest we have been very quiet on this issue, at least 
this Senator has, since last year.
  It seems to me, though, that sooner or later Congress is going to 
have to examine this if we are going to have any credibility ourselves 
as an institution. We have responsibilities. We cannot pass them all 
off to the independent counsel. We have not done it in the past. We can 
come out and give some fine legal argument. The American people do not 
understand that.
  We have oversight responsibility. We exercise that responsibility 
time after time after time, and it seems to me that sooner or later, 
this is going to become an issue and it should not become an issue. We 
are not asking for anybody's head, we are just asking for hearings. We 
are asking for hearings. We are going to be asking our colleagues, why 
should we not have hearings? The Democrats chair all the committees. 
They are not going to get out of hand. They control the staff. The 
Democrats control every agency in town, every Cabinet office, the White 
House. I do not think it is too much to the let the minority in this 
case, the Republicans, to explain to the American people, or bring out 
the facts so the American people can make a judgment. Nobody has made a 
judgment. We are not about to make a judgment. It is not my purpose to 
make a judgment. But it is our responsibility to try to obtain the 
facts. And if the majority says you cannot have the facts, we are not 
going to have any hearings, we do not care what happens, OK, they are 
the majority, they have the votes; they have 56, we have 44 and we will 
have to resort to whatever we can.
  I do not have any problem with Ricki Tigert. So I apologize to her. 
If she can give me some other way we can go or if we can have hearings, 
that nomination would not be held up 1 minute.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC. March 2, 1994.
     Hon. George J. Mitchell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Mr. Leader:  We are writing to inform you that we will 
     object to any agreement seeking consent to proceed to the 
     nomination of Ricki R. Tigert, President Clinton's nominee to 
     chair the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, until the 
     Senate Banking Committee has an opportunity to thoroughly 
     examine the Resolution Trust Corporation's handling of its 
     civil investigation into Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan.
       As you know, the Acting Chief Executive Officer of the RTC, 
     Roger Altman, recently disclosed that he sought a meeting 
     with White House officials to give them a ``heads-up'' on the 
     RTC's investigation. Needless to say, such a meeting is 
     highly improper and raises very real questions about Mr. 
     Altman's impartiality and the alleged independence of the 
     investigation. Specifically, why were Harold Ickes and 
     Margaret Williams present, in addition to White House Counsel 
     Bernard Nussbaum? According to the Washington Post, Mr. Ickes 
     the Deputy Chief of Staff, is responsible for Whitewater 
     ``damage control'' Ms. Williams, Chief of Staff for Mrs. 
     Clinton, had previously participated with Mr. Nussbaum in 
     searching Vincent Foster's office and sending all or some of 
     the materials to David Kendall of Williams and Connally who 
     is representing the President and Mrs. Clinton.
       We believe public hearings are required to explore these 
     and other questions involving the attendance of political 
     operatives at the White House in briefings by the head of a 
     supposedly independent agency on matters that have nothing to 
     do with the Executive Office of the President.
       We regret having to delay the Senate's consideration of Ms. 
     Tigert's nomination. Nevertheless, the American people 
     deserve to have confidence that the RTC conducts its 
     important business in an independent and impartial fashion. A 
     Congressional hearing is an appropriate forum in which to 
     examine the important ethical and regulatory issues raised by 
     the Altman-White House meeting.
           Sincerely,
         Alfonse D'Amato, Paul Coverdell, Bob Dole, Malcolm 
           Wallop, Phil Gramm, Judd Gregg, Larry E. Craig, Trent 
           Lott, Dan Coats, Connie Mack, Conrad Burns, John 
           McCain, Robert F. Bennett, Kit Bond, Ted Stevens, Lauch 
           Faircloth, Bob Packwood, Arlen Specter, John H. Chafee, 
           Jim Jeffords, Al Simpson, Jessee Helms, Don Nickles, 
           Mitch McConnell, Orrin Hatch, Strom Thurmond, Thad 
           Cochran, Pete V. Domenici, Hank Brown, Mark Hatfield, 
           Larry Pressler, Bill Roth, John C. Danforth, Chuck 
           Grassley, Bill Cohen, Dave Durenberger, Slade Gorton, 
           Richard G. Lugar, Bob Smith, Nancy Landon Kassebaum, 
           John Warner, Dirk Kempthorne, Kay Bailey Hutchison.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2

               [From the Washington Times, Mar. 3, 1994]

                  ``Hubbell `Denies' Rose Firm Probe''

                   ``Altman Gets Close to the Heat''

                [From the Washington Post, Mar. 3, 1994]

          ``Hubbell Confirms Questioning, Asserts Innocence''

      ``Treasury Officials Told White House Status of S&L Probe''

          ``Hillary Clinton's Role in Lawsuit Appears Larger''

                [From the New York Times, Mar. 3, 1994]

     ``Justice Official is Questioned About Billings at Rose Firm''

``Whitewater Cover-up''

                          ____________________