[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 26 (Thursday, March 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                               WHITEWATER

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this morning's Wall Street Journal 
reported on another poll they have done. The poll reflects what many of 
us have said all along: The American people see through all the 
partisanship of Whitewater. They see it for what it is: Politics at its 
worst. More Americans perceive Whitewater more as a beltway political 
fight than as anything else. Twice as many people believe the issue is 
being used against the President as believe there was anything done 
wrong.
  No question was asked in the poll about whether this has been yet 
another body blow to the institution, but one does not need a poll to 
answer that. No one should be mistaken. Opponents of the President may 
be aiming their political missiles at him and the First Lady, but they 
are destroying us.
  The age-old political tactic has always been to tear down the 
opponent, do what one can to tar him with negatives. As we know, all 
too often it works, at least in the short term. And as we also know, 
this practice usually raises the negative opinion of both sides, and 
that is what the polling data is telling us again today. The American 
people do not believe the accusations. They overwhelmingly believe that 
the motivation is political. And it appears they also believe less in 
the institutions of government now than at any time since polling data 
has been produced.
  The American people are asking what a constituent of mine asked just 
last weekend: Why do all of you not put the same energy into health 
care or deficit reduction that you seem so consistently to put into 
politics?
  I would add--why, especially if, with this kind of politics, everyone 
loses?
  If the American people see through the political rhetoric, as the 
Wall Street Journal poll indicates--if their view of Congress continues 
to erode with each new episode, then, Mr. President, why do we do it? 
Why do we continue to destroy the institutions we all claim we came 
here to serve?
  The motivations of some of our Republican colleagues could not be 
more clear than they are on the matter of the special counsel. We all 
now know the facts. Even though there were no specific allegations of 
legal wrongdoing relating to Whitewater, many Republicans created the 
appearance of legal wrongdoing and demanded a special counsel. 
Incredibly, the demand followed a long debate about the very need for a 
counsel, in which most Republicans argued for the abolition of the 
office.
  Following Republican demands, Attorney General Janet Reno appointed a 
special counsel, in spite of the lack of specific legal allegations 
and, I might add, at a substantial cost to the taxpayer. The response 
to the appointment was universally positive.
  Robert Fiske, a Republican attorney with an impeccable reputation, 
was an appropriate choice. Our colleague from New York, Senator 
D'Amato, called him ``one of the most honorable and skilled lawyers 
anywhere to be found.'' And praise was justified.
  Since he was appointed, he has issued broad subpoenas and empaneled a 
grand jury. He is calling witnesses before that grand jury, as we 
speak.
  Yet, just as he is about to delve into the allegations, carefully, 
systematically, with the precision of a surgeon, some of the same 
Republicans on both sides of the Capitol are now saying, ``We want to 
do it too,''--but not as surgeons, more as butchers--taking a meat-ax 
to the process, to legal considerations for the investigation, to the 
reputations of the people involved.
  After having opposed the Office of the Special Counsel, then 
demanding a special counsel and getting one, some of them now want to 
do his work. And by now everyone knows the position of the special 
counsel on the matter of the timing of congressional hearings. He has 
asked that all hearings be postponed. He has asked that he be given 
time to do the job that we asked him to do. And, he made it very clear, 
``Nothing could jeopardize the success of [his] work more than 
congressional intrusion right now.''
  That view is strongly shared by the last special counsel, Lawrence 
Walsh.
  Judge Walsh, in his final Iran-Contra report, states:

       Congress should be aware of the fact that future immunity 
     grants, at least in such highly publicized cases, will likely 
     rule out criminal prosecution.
       Congressional action that precludes, or makes it impossible 
     to sustain, a prosecution has more serious consequences than 
     simply one conviction. There is a significant inequity when 
     more peripheral players are convicted while central players 
     in a criminal enterprise escape punishment. And perhaps more 
     fundamentally, the failure to punish governmental lawbreakers 
     feeds the perception that public officials are not wholly 
     accountable for their actions.

  Let there be no mistake, after creating a special counsel, some 
Republicans clearly are willing to subvert his work. What makes it even 
more transparent is something that appeared in this morning's Wall 
Street Journal, as well. Apparently, similar meetings to the ones which 
have so exercised some of our colleagues occurred in the Bush White 
House. In his book, ``Full Faith and Credit,'' Bill Seidman describes a 
conversation remarkably similar to those now being criticized. On page 
243 of his book, Seidman describes a telephone conversation between Al 
Byrne, the chief counsel of the FDIC, and C. Boyden Gray, the White 
House counsel. Gray raised the Neil Bush matter, known as Silverado:

       Boyden wanted to know if there was any legal process to 
     move the Neil Bush case out of the administrative process and 
     into a Federal court * * * On January 2, my first day in the 
     office after the holidays, Tim Ryan informed me that Al had 
     called him about Neil Bush and the possible change of venue * 
     * * Here was a neat little story for some investigative 
     reporter, and I could never write the headline: ``White House 
     Tries to Influence the Neil Bush Case.''

  Mr. President, perhaps it would be appropriate to ask Mr. Fiske to 
expand his investigation to all cases involving White House dealings 
and personal matters relating to the RTC, but that really takes me back 
to my original point: How is the institution best served in all of 
this?
  I think we know the answer. The answer is really pretty simple. The 
answer is to let Mr. Fiske do his job. It is to let us tone down the 
political rhetoric and stop the posturing. It is to let us get on with 
the pressing legislative agenda before us. That is the answer.
  We did that last year, and the results have exceeded our 
expectations. Frankly, that may be the very reason we are being 
diverted right now. It is hard to find something to complain about when 
it comes to the economy or our efforts to reduce the deficit. Nine 
months ago, many of our critics predicted a recession if the 
President's economic plan was passed.
  But we know the results. Under President Clinton, we have seen a 2.8-
percent growth in the economy, double what it was for the 4 years 
before he took office. The President's critics predicted massive job 
layoffs. Instead, 1.9 million new jobs have been created, more than the 
total number of jobs created in the 4 years before he took office.
  Our critics predicted an increase, not a decrease, in the Federal 
deficit. But the projected deficit has been reduced by $114 billion for 
1995 alone. Inflation is the lowest it has been since 1979, and, at 2.7 
percent, is less than two-thirds of what it was in the 4 years before 
the President took office.
  Maybe that is why the American people see through this, Mr. 
President. So many Republicans were wrong on the economy, so many were 
wrong on the deficit. They are likely wrong on this, too.
  The American people shake their heads in recognition that politicians 
in Washington just do not get it. It is politics as usual that drives 
them to support term limits and campaign reform and just about anything 
else that could bring about changes in our democratic institutions. But 
all they really want is something of which there is an abundance 
outside the beltway: They want hard work and good common sense.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________