[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 25 (Wednesday, March 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          WHITEWATER HEARINGS

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, earlier this week, independent counsel 
Robert Fiske weighed in, asking Congress not to hold hearings on the 
Whitewater affair until after he completes his investigation. Mr. Fiske 
cites concerns about the granting of immunity and the premature 
disclosure of testimony and documents.
  No doubt about it, Mr. Fiske has a tough job, but he must remember 
that Congress has a tough job too. In fact, Congress has more than a 
job, it has a constitutional obligation to exercise oversight over 
executive branch activities. And lest we forget, Mr. President: Those 
of us in Congress were elected by the American people. Mr. Fiske was 
not. His appointment as independent counsel was never intended as an 
excuse for Congress to punt on its own oversight responsibilities.

  In fact, when I wrote to Senator Riegle last December, I requested 
Banking Committee hearings, not the appointment of a special counsel. I 
urged the appointment of a special counsel only after Republican calls 
for hearings had been rejected. Hearings are still necessary.
  Obviously, we do not want to needlessly interfere with Mr. Fiske's 
investigation, and that is why it is important for Congress to do what 
it can to address his concerns.
  For starters, we can ensure that any committee looking into 
Whitewater not grant immunity to any witnesses. That should avoid the 
so-called Iran-Contra problem.
  In addition, we can certainly work out whatever arrangements may be 
necessary to prevent the premature disclosure of testimony and 
documents.
  Later today--in fact, at 11:30--Senator D'Amato and others will be 
meeting with Mr. Fiske, and these issues, no doubt, will be discussed.
  Mr. Fiske should also remember that the recently revealed behind-the-
scenes meetings among White House, RTC, and Treasury officials would 
still be shrouded in secrecy if Banking Committee Republicans had not 
used the opportunity of an RTC oversight hearing to ask Whitewater-
related questions. If there had been no hearing, there would have been 
no public disclosure of the meetings, and no subpoenas.
  Mr. President, Congress has never been shy about exercising 
oversight, particularly when allegations of executive branch wrongdoing 
are involved. During the Reagan and Bush administrations, the 
Congressional Research Service estimates that more than 20 such 
hearings were held. Remember the hearings to examine the so-called 
irregularities in Ed Meese's 1985 financial disclosure reports? Or the 
investigation into the alleged misuse of a gift fund by President 
Reagan's Ambassador to Switzerland? Or the October Surprise hearings? 
These were not major stories, but, oh, we had congressional hearings. 
My colleagues on the other side could hardly wait for congressional 
hearings in those days.

  And, yes, there is plenty of precedent for holding congressional 
oversight hearings while criminal and civil investigations are pending. 
The BNL and BCCI hearings come to mind. Again, that has not been that 
long ago, and all these things were going on and we still had hearings.
  Yesterday, President Clinton unfortunately accused Republicans of 
practicing the politics of personal destruction, suggesting that we are 
trying to gin up Whitewater hysteria. I categorically reject these 
claims.
  No matter how hard some of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle try to paint Whitewater as a Republican conspiracy, the bottom 
line is that Republicans are not responsible for negative editorials 
and press coverage in the Washington Post, the New York Times, and 
countless other newspapers. Nor do Republicans control Newsweek 
magazine, which this week ran a cover story entitled ``Whitewater 
Torture.'' Much of the Whitewater torture is self-inflicted, the result 
of missteps, misstatements, some honest mistakes, and yes, some 
outright deceptions.
  So, Mr. President, let us stop the finger pointing. And let us get on 
with the hearings. As the New York Times editorialized today,

       Congress has a clear right to ask questions about 
     Government regulation of the savings and loan mess in 
     Arkansas and, even more urgently, about whether the recently 
     disclosed White House meetings with bank regulators represent 
     an attempt to obstruct justice.

  That is not my quote, not from the Republican National Committee, not 
from any Republican, not from a Republican newspaper, but from the New 
York Times today.
  No doubt about it, it is critical that Whitewater hearings be 
bipartisan, carefully structured, and conducted in a way sensitive to 
the concerns of the independent counsel.
  This is not an impossible task, even for Congress.
  I do not want to prejudge what these hearings may or may not 
disclose, but it is becoming increasingly clear that we need to get to 
the bottom of Whitewater so we can move ahead on the vital issues 
facing our country.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times 
editorial and a Washington Times editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

                       [From the New York Times]

                     How to Investigate Whitewater

       A potentially destructive battle over how best to 
     investigate the Whitewater affair has erupted between 
     Republicans who are pressing for Congressional hearings and 
     the independent counsel, Robert Fiske, who is pursing a 
     criminal investigation.
       Mr. Fiske fears that a rogue Congress could foul up his 
     work--which it could if it plunges ahead with abandon. But 
     Congress has a clear right to ask questions about government 
     regulation of the savings and loan mess in Arkansas and, even 
     more urgently, about whether the recently disclosed White 
     House meetings with bank regulators represented an attempt to 
     obstruct justice.
       The challenge now is for both sides to figure out a way for 
     Congress to conduct legitimate inquiries without impeding a 
     thorough and fair criminal investigation.
       The White House and many Democrats complain that 
     Republicans are merely out to embarrass the President and 
     Mrs. Clinton. That is surely true of some--but the public has 
     a right to know whether the White House is abusing its power.
       Mr. Fiske concedes that Republicans like Representative Jim 
     Leach are correct to insist on Congress's oversight 
     responsibility. Even so, he fears that any hearings ``would 
     pose a severe risk'' to his inquiry. That exaggerates the 
     danger, so long as Congress refrains from granting key 
     witnesses immunity--a problem that ultimately doomed Iran-
     contra prosecutions. The Republicans have already said they 
     would not offer immunity.
       Mr. Fiske is on stronger ground when he argues that 
     Congressional hearings could lead to ``tailored'' testimony 
     from witnesses who might adjust their stories after gaining 
     access to documents or testimony before Congress. That risk, 
     however, can be minimized if Congress agrees to delay its 
     hearings and give Mr. Fiske time to interview the major 
     players, especially those in the White House and the Treasury 
     Department. In any case, the risk is not sufficient to 
     justify asking Congress to abandon its oversight role until 
     the end of an investigation of uncertain length.
       Like most prosecutors, Mr. Fiske seeks complete control of 
     the case. But he ignores the fact that similar Congressional 
     hearings in the past have produced significant new 
     information that has ended up helping prosecutors to make 
     their case. Indeed, Mr. Leach notes, it was questioning by 
     Senator Alfonse D'Amato of New York at a recent hearing that 
     led to the disclosure of the White House meetings and 
     prompted Mr. Fiske to expand his investigation to include 
     them. So, too, Congressional Watergate hearings brought out 
     the existence of crucial White House tapes.
       There should be room for give here by both sides. Mr. Leach 
     and Mr. D'Amato should grant Mr. Fiske a head start, probably 
     measured in weeks. But Mr. Fiske cannot reasonably expect 
     Congress to put off its hearings indefinitely, especially 
     when the history of such hearings does not support his worst 
     fears.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Times, Mar. 9, 1994]

                No Immunity, Just Hearings on Whitewater

       It is understandable that the Whitewater special 
     prosecutor, Robert Fiske Jr., does not want his investigation 
     trampled by clumsy congressional inquiries. The history of 
     Capitol Hill's show trials is not a pretty one, with the 
     truth often lost in the process rather than revealed. The 
     Iran-Contra hearings are a case in point, and as Mr. Fiske 
     argued in his letters to lawmakers Monday, that investigation 
     proved to be a legal stumbling block that independent counsel 
     Lawrence Walsh never was able to hurdle. Mr. Fiske has so far 
     made a clear that he is no prosecutorial wallflower, and he 
     should be given room to do his job. But a congressional 
     airing of Whitewater does not have to be an impediment to the 
     special prosecutor. Short of undesirable interference with 
     Mr. Fiske's work, the public's need and right to know about 
     Whitewater far outweighs any reservations the special counsel 
     might have.
       The disaster that was the Iran-Contra investigation was 
     built out of a bundle of grants of immunity. Democrats on the 
     Hill believed they had their chance to ruin Ronald Reagan and 
     were so eager to bring him down that they granted immunity to 
     almost every player in Iran-Contra. Once granted immunity, 
     Democrats were sure the would hear from a string of witnesses 
     who would point their fingers at the president. Instead, the 
     actions of dubious legality turned out to have been 
     undertaken without the president's approval. At the end of 
     the day, all the ringleaders had confessed, conveniently 
     under a grant of immunity. It should be remembered that Mr. 
     Reagan escaped prosecution because the prosecutors had 
     nothing on him, not because he had been granted immunity.
       The great flaw of the Iran-Contra hearings does not have to 
     be repeated in Whitewater hearings. The solution: Give no 
     grants of immunity. Without immunity, congressional 
     investigation into Whitewater is more likely to help the 
     special prosecutor than hinder him. Events and facts may come 
     to light in thorough questioning on the Hill that might not 
     have turned up in Mr. Fiske's efforts. Already the efforts of 
     those doing independent investigative work have aided Mr. 
     Fiske. The special prosecutor was put on to the issue of 
     document shredding at the Rose law firm after an account of 
     it appeared in The Washington Times. Reporters and 
     congressmen turning up new information will not hurt Mr. 
     Fiske's probe.
       Without grants of immunity, no one guilty of wrongdoing 
     will get an easy out. Congress can subpoena witnesses, and 
     those who don't wish to answer the Hill's questions will not 
     have to. They can simply invoke the Fifth Amendment's 
     protection against self-incrimination and remain silent.
       Congressional Democrats are latching onto Mr. Fiske's 
     request as just one more excuse to avoid hearings that will 
     gravely embarrass their party. But it becomes apparent to 
     more of the electorate every day that it is partisan politics 
     that has the hearing rooms silent. Democrats attacked every 
     hint of Republican scandal with unsuppressed glee for more 
     than a decade, always with long-winded and self-
     congratulatory sermons about the independent investigative 
     role of the legislative branch. Now, they think no inquiry at 
     all is appropriate. Democratic leaders can try to hide behind 
     Mr. Fiske's request that they not interfere, but the 
     hypocrisy is just too large for the fig leaf.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my leader time.

                          ____________________