[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]

 
                      THE WHITEWATER INVESTIGATION

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am very grateful to the Senator from 
South Carolina yielding to me, and with the indulgence of my friend 
from Oklahoma I will not address his amendment but I will respond, if I 
might, to a previous statement on the floor.
  I must admit, Mr. President, I did not have the opportunity, because 
I was running over to the Capitol, to listen to the entirety of the 
statement. I do think, though, that the statement that I refer to which 
was given by my very good friend from Utah, the distinguished junior 
Senator from that State, Senator Bennett, was talking about the New 
York Times or made reference to the New York Times editorial of this 
morning which was entitled ``How To Investigate Whitewater.''
  Mr. President, this editorial has been the subject of some discussion 
today, not only on the floor of this body, but I think the 
distinguished minority leader inserted the entirety of this editorial 
into the Congressional Record this morning.
  But I would like, if I might, to discuss one or two of the paragraphs 
that may not have been highlighted as they should have. I would like to 
quote, Mr. President, as I do at this moment:

       ``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--or Congressman Leach--notes, and I quote;

       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.

  Mr. President, that particular paragraph, I think, is presuming a 
great deal of knowledge.
  One, we have no knowledge that Mr. Fiske had no indication that such 
a meeting had taken place. It was not necessarily involved in the 
Senate Banking Committee testimony where Mr. Fiske first heard of this 
so-called meeting in the White House. Mr. Fiske could have known of 
this meeting weeks ago because the White House has been very, very 
certain that any and all relevant information are going directly to Mr. 
Fiske. The President reiterated, restated his resolve, Mr. President, 
to have the White House, the entirety of the White House staff 
absolutely hold back nothing, indicating that every bit of information 
the White House had in its possession was given and going to be given 
to the special counsel, Mr. Fiske.
  Mr. President, also I am not knowledgeable of whether or not the 
March 7, 1994, letter, addressed to Senator Riegle and Senator D'Amato, 
as the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee has 
been placed in the Record. Momentarily, I will ask that its full 
contents be placed in the Record so that our colleagues might take 
advantage of reading that particular letter.
  Mr. President, this is not a normal letter. This is a letter of 
extraordinary importance. It is a letter once again dated March 7, just 
2 days ago, in which it states in making reference to the possibility 
of a congressional hearing, and I quote from Mr. Fiske to Mr. Riegle 
and Mr. D'Amato:

       Inquiry into the underlying events surrounding MGS&L, 
     Whitewater and CMS by a Congressional Committee would pose a 
     severe risk to the integrity of our investigation. 
     Inevitably, any such inquiry would overlap substantially with 
     the grand jury's activities. Among other concerns, the 
     Committee certainly would seek to interview the same 
     witnesses or subjects who are central to the criminal 
     investigation. Such interviews could jeopardize our 
     investigation in several respects, including the dangers of 
     Congressional immunity, the premature disclosures of the 
     contents of documents or of witnesses' testimony to other 
     witnesses on the same subject (creating the risk of tailored 
     testimony) and of premature public disclosure of matters at 
     the core of the criminal investigation.

  Another paragraph or two down, Mr. President, at the conclusion of 
the letter from Mr. Fiske, the independent counsel:

       For these reasons, we request that your committee not 
     conduct any hearings in the areas covered by the grand jury's 
     ongoing investigation, both in order to avoid compromising 
     that investigation and in order to further the public 
     interest in preserving the fairness, thoroughness, and 
     confidentiality of the grand jury process.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entirety of Mr. 
Fiske's letter to Senator Riegle and Senator D'Amato be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                            Office of the Independent Counsel,

                                   Little Rock, AR, March 7, 1994.
     Hon. Donald W. Riegle, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Alfonse M. D'Amato,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Banking, Housing and 
         Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Riegle and D'Amato: I am writing this letter 
     to express my strong concern about the impact of any hearings 
     that your Committee might hold into the underlaying events 
     concerning Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan (``MGS&L''), 
     Whitewater and Capital Management Services (``CMS'') on the 
     investigation that this Office is conducting into these 
     matters.
       As you know, I was appointed to the position of Independent 
     Counsel pursuant to CFR 603.1 on January 31, 1994. Since that 
     date we have obtained an order from Chief Judge Stephen M. 
     Reasoner in the Eastern District of Arkansas authorizing the 
     empaneling of a grand jury which will be devoted exclusively 
     to the Whitewater/MGS&L/CMS investigation. In the meantime, 
     we have been using the regular grand jury for this District. 
     We have a team of eight experienced attorneys, six of whom 
     were current or former prosecutors when they joined the 
     staff. We are working in Little Rock with a team of more than 
     twenty FBI agents and financial analysts who are working full 
     time on this matter. We are doing everything possible to 
     conduct and conclude as expeditiously as possible a complete, 
     thorough and impartial investigation.
       Inquiry into the underlaying events surrounding MGS&L, 
     Whitewater and CMS by a Congressional Committee would pose a 
     severe risk to the integrity of our investigation. 
     Inevitably, any such inquiry would overlap substantially with 
     the grand jury's activities. Among other concerns, the 
     Committee certainly would seek to interview the same 
     witnesses or subjects who are central to the criminal 
     investigation. Such interviews could jeopardize our 
     investigation in several respects, including the dangers of 
     Congressional immunity, the premature disclosures of the 
     contents of documents or of witnesses' testimony to other 
     witnesses on the same subject (creating the risk of tailored 
     testimony) and of premature public disclosure of matters at 
     the core of the criminal investigation. This inherent 
     conflict would be greatly magnified by the fact that the 
     Committee would be covering essentially the same ground as 
     the grand jury.
       While we recognize the Committee's oversight 
     responsibilities pursuant to Section 501 of PL 101-73 
     (FIREAA), we have similar concerns with a Congressional 
     investigation into the recently-disclosed meetings between 
     White House and Treasury Department officials--particlarly 
     because we believe these hearings will inevitably lead to the 
     disclosure of the contents or RTC referrals and other 
     information relating to the underlying grand jury 
     investigation.
       For these reasons, we request that your Committee not 
     conduct any hearings in the areas covered by the grand jury's 
     ongoing investigation, both in order to avoid compromising 
     that investigation and in order to further the public 
     interest in preserving the fairness, thoroughness, and 
     confidentiality of the grand jury process.
       I will be glad to meet with you personally to explain our 
     position further if you feel that would be helpful.
           Respectfully yours,
                                             Robert B. Fiske, Jr.,
                                              Independent Counsel.

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, also this morning in the Arkansas Democrat-
Gazette, which is our statewide newspaper, Mr. President, among the 
clips that were sent up today was a disturbing clip that came to our 
office this morning, because it listed--and I think I will just go 
ahead and read it. It is short. It says: ``GOP drops names in 
`invitation' to testify.''

       House Republicans said Tuesday they want 40 people to 
     testify this month before Congress in connection with the 
     Whitewater Development Corp. controversy.
       Questions about Whitewater and Madison Guaranty Savings & 
     Loan Association are expected to be raised by Republicans 
     during a House Banking Committee hearing March 24.
       Officially, the meeting will be an oversight hearing 
     focusing on the Resolution Trust Corp. But Whitewater-related 
     questions are expected to dominate the hearing.
       Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, has asked House Democrats to 
     formally invite the 40 people to the hearing. Even if 
     Democrats agree with Leach's request, the witnesses might 
     have to appear before the committee only on a voluntary 
     basis, congressional aides said.

  Well, here we go, Mr. President. And then they start listing all of 
the 40 individuals that they want to come to Washington, DC, to appear 
before the House Banking Committee, which, once again, is a committee 
to look at the year's activities of the Resolution Trust Corporation--
40 people that they want to have attorneys, airplanes, travel, hotels, 
lawyers, whatever, to come and bask before the TV lights and the press 
of the world.
  Maybe some of these people think they are not involved in Whitewater. 
Here is one. I do not know how he would be involved. Shelfield Nelson. 
He has been a Republican candidate for Governor in our State. I do not 
know what Mr. Nelson has to do with Whitewater necessarily.
  He can afford it. He is a multimillionaire, Mr. President. Mr. Nelson 
can afford all the high-priced lawyers that he wants.
  There are other people on this list. I am not going to name all the 
people.
  But, Mr. President, there are a lot of people on this list that 
cannot afford some of the law firms that are going to get $300 and $400 
and $500 an hour to represent these people before the House Banking 
Committee or whatever committee that we are going to be talking about 
over the next several weeks and perhaps months.
  I might add that Mr. Fiske has a 1-year lease on his apartment in 
Little Rock, AR. He has signed on the line for a 1-year lease, so he is 
planning to stay there awhile. He is down there, has a big battery of 
lawyers, all kinds of staff. They are going to investigate thoroughly 
the entirety of the Whitewater issue.
  He has also signed a lease, or someone has, allegedly, on the office 
space--I have mentioned this on the floor before--a 3-year lease for 
this particular office space.
  Now that, frankly, sends chills up my spine, because I cannot imagine 
this inquiry taking 3 years. If it takes 3 years, and if all of the 
people here who are on this list, these 40 people--and I am sure they 
are going to add probably 40 more and then 40 more after that and 40 
more after that--if all of these individuals have to hire lawyers and 
retain these lawyers for a year or 2 years or 3 years, the only 
people--the only people--who are going to be profiting from the 
Whitewater episode are going to be the lawyers. They are going to be 
the ones who profit from the Whitewater fiasco, whatever you might call 
it.
  Mr. President, I am going to stand today on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate and I am going to say that someday I might stand at this 
particular desk and say, ``Mr. President''--or ``Madam President,'' 
depending on who is sitting there--``I think that we should have a 
congressional inquiry.'' I might say that. This Senator from Arkansas 
might come to the floor and say that.
  But, Mr. President, at this time, I think the better part of wisdom 
and judgment is to abide by the advice of Mr. Robert Fiske, the special 
independent counsel, to not hold congressional hearings and to allow 
the special independent counsel to proceed at his own pace, undeterred, 
without all the confusion of a simultaneous congressional hearing that 
is going to turn into a Barnum & Bailey Circus.
  That is what it is about. It is about politics; it is about politics 
as we know it.
  Mr. President, in my opinion, this Congress would be doing a great 
disservice if we, at the same moment--at the same moment the special 
counsel is doing his investigation--try to appoint a special committee 
or even use one of the existing committees to investigate the 
Whitewater issue.
  I have respect for the special counsel, and my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle ought to have respect for this man, because he 
has not been what we call a Democrat. He has been a Republican most of 
his life. He has given campaign contributions to our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle. And that is fine. But I think that that just 
goes to show to the degree of how independent this particular special 
counsel is going to be.
  And I quote my friend from New York, Senator D'Amato. When Mr. Fiske 
was named--I have done this before; this is the second time--Senator 
D'Amato stated:

       Bob Fiske is uniquely qualified for this position. He is a 
     man of uncompromising integrity. He will unearth the truth 
     for the American people.

  He went on to say that he is ``* * * one is one of the most honorable 
and most skilled lawyers anywhere.''
  So Mr. Fiske comes and pleads with the chairman and the ranking 
member of the committee not to go forward with hearings while he is 
doing his investigation, and yet there are those today who say we 
should not heed his advice. I say we should heed his advice.
  We are going to make a terrible mistake right now. If we think the 
public clamor and the public demand to hold a congressional hearing is 
so strong that we have to give into that public clamor, Mr. President, 
I think that we are doing a great disservice to our country, to our 
President, and to the process that we have revered here for so long.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me. I thank my 
friend from South Carolina for allowing me to speak at this time.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________