[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. D'AMATO. Mr. President,

       A central function of democracy is to allow a free people 
     to drag realities out into the sunlight and demand a full 
     accounting from those who are committed to hold and exercise 
     power. Congress provides a forum for disclosing the hidden 
     aspects of governmental conflict.

  These are powerful words that proclaim the responsibility of 
Congress--on behalf of the American people--to expose the truth and 
demand a complete report of the facts from those entrusted to function 
within our Government.
  These are great words. They are not mine. These words were written by 
two highly respected colleagues, the distinguished majority leader, and 
Senator Cohen in a book entitled ``Men of Zeal.''
  These words are being echoed all over America. Just this morning, Sam 
Dash, the man whom the Senate chose to serve as the chief counsel of 
the Special Committee to Investigate Watergate, said:

       We have a democracy. The ultimate sovereign is the people, 
     and Congress is the agency that is given the power and the 
     right to inform the public on how the Government is working 
     and how the Executive Branch is working.

  He went on to say:

       I see no problem in Congress holding hearings. I think 
     Senator D'Amato and the other Members of Congress have acted 
     responsibly.

  The New York Times in an editorial, yesterday, said:

       Congress has a clear right to ask questions about the 
     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 public 
     has a right to know whether the White House is abusing its 
     power.

  Mr. President, I do not believe that there is a single Member of this 
body who does not agree that the public has a right to know what is 
taking place in our Government, and that the Congress has an obligation 
to gather that information and bring those facts to light.
  Indeed, during my 12 years in the Senate, the Congress has not 
hesitated to conduct extensive hearings into the conduct of the 
executive branch of Government, especially if there has been even a 
hint of potential wrongdoing. Yet, some Members of this body have 
refused to hold hearings involving Whitewater. Have the 
responsibilities of Congress changed? No. Has the public's right to 
know changed? No. There has only been a change in one thing: the 
political party and power in the White House.
  To those who say it is the Republicans that are playing politics, Al 
Smith said it best: ``Let's look at the record.'' That record shows 
that it is the Democrats who are playing politics. First, they oppose 
the appointment of a special counsel, and now they are opposed to 
holding hearings. By refusing to hold hearings, the Democrats are 
building a stone wall around Whitewater and blocking the flow of facts 
to the American people.
  Mr. President, yesterday Senator Cohen and I met with Robert Fiske, 
the special counsel appointed to look into the Whitewater affair. 
Understandably, he must be able to conduct his investigation, and we 
agreed and made it clear that Congress should not and would not grant 
immunity to any witness involved in his investigation. That is the 
right thing to do. But to permit Democrats and my colleagues in the 
Congress to grant immunity to the White House from any hearings is just 
plain wrong.
  There should be no congressional immunity for the White House and the 
people have a right to know. That is exactly what is taking place now. 
The issue is not whether Congress should hold hearings, but rather how 
to conduct those hearings in a way that enables the special counsel to 
conduct his investigation. The special counsel has a job to do, and so 
does Congress. Congress did not delegate its oversight responsibility 
to Mr. Fiske. There have been many investigations, but Congress has 
never before run away from its oversight role as a result of an ongoing 
investigation.
  We should not let Congress leave the scene now. As the New York Times 
stated in yesterday's editorial:

       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.

  Mr. President, I am confident that Congress can meet this challenge 
on how best to structure oversight hearings. Unfortunately, getting my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join me in fulfilling our 
congressional responsibilities to hold any hearings is the biggest 
challenge of all.
  Mr. President, let me say that it was as a result of a Senate Banking 
Committee oversight hearing that we found out that there were meetings 
taking place that should not have taken place. We found out from Mr. 
Altman, the acting head of the RTC, that he had initiated, in his own 
words, one meeting to give a ``heads up,'' as it related to the 
Whitewater-Madison matter, to people in the White House. Thereafter, 
Mr. Altman sought to correct his testimony in two letters. One was 
dated March 2 and the other March 3 to Senator Riegle.
  The fact of the matter is that in both of those letters he did not 
adequately address the fact that there may have been other 
conversations with those in the White House. I refer to today's New 
York Times, page 820, in which people at the White House have indicated 
that indeed Mr. Altman has had some other meetings or conversations. 
And one of them--it may seem a rather simple matter--I would suggest is 
more distressing and disturbing than what we have already learned. 
Because if it is true that the acting head of an independent agency 
actually went to the White House to ask them whether or not he should 
recuse himself, then I have to suggest that that in and of itself is 
rather damning.
  There were those of us who suggested publicly that Mr. Altman was in 
an untenable position, being a top political appointee to the Treasury 
Department, and finding himself as the acting head of an independent 
regulatory body conducting investigations, that may touch upon the very 
people who appointed him. I believe that this was difficult, if not 
impossible for him. It put him in a terrible position. But, Mr. 
President, I suggest that if he went to his own counsel, if he went to 
outside ethics counsel to ascertain whether or not he should make this 
recusal, that would be the normal course; but to go to the White House 
and ask the very people who he goes in to brief, that is unacceptable. 
Just think about it. It is absolutely wrong on its face.
  The fact that after he communicated in letters to the chairman of the 
Banking Committee to correct his testimony, that he communicated as it 
related to his testimony to Senator Bond thereafter, but never brought 
up the fact that he made contact with the White House to seek their 
advice as to whether or not he should recuse himself is absolutely 
unforgivable. There is no explanation that can justify that kind of 
conduct. It is absolutely wrong on its face.
  You do not go to the very people who may have a very real interest as 
it relates to what that independent agency is doing to ascertain 
whether or not you should recuse yourself.
  Mr. Altman certainly should have known better. According to this 
account, he refused, or failed to tell the committee, and thereafter, 
on at least three separate occasions, even after advising the committee 
chairman that he would like to correct his testimony, that he asked 
whether or not he should recuse himself. If this account as contained 
in the Times, which quotes unnamed White House sources and certain 
other sources, is accurate, I suggest to you that Mr. Altman should 
resign.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Senator from New York has, from time to 
time, come to the floor--and I cannot place it in any kinder words--and 
damned this present administration. I think when Mr. Fiske was 
appointed, the most eloquent approval of Mr. Fiske was given by the 
junior Senator from New York--thorough, honest, all of the accolades 
and things that you need.
  We learned a real lesson in Iran-Contra here in the Senate. The 
lesson was that we gave immunity for testimony. Those who gave the 
testimony were convicted, they appealed their conviction, and the 
circuit court ruled.
  In the ruling of the circuit court--and I am not a lawyer so I take 
my advice and counsel from what dad would tell me, ``Get a good lawyer 
and stay with him,'' and I have tried to do that--the rules of the game 
have been changed because of that decision.
  It is not that we are trying to not hold hearings, but we want the 
special counsel to do exactly what the junior Senator from New York 
wants him to do--make a thorough investigation without being impeded; 
second, if he finds wrongdoing in that investigation, to prosecute it 
vigorously.
  You cannot ask for much more than that from the special prosecutor 
who has been given the highest accolades anybody can give. He even made 
a trip to Capitol Hill to say, ``Please do not do this to me; let me 
complete my investigation.''
  Yet we come out here and hear the chest thumping and desk pounding of 
why we are not getting it done.
  I was not in the meeting, but I listened to the junior Senator from 
New York and Mr. Fiske yesterday on television, and read his article in 
the paper, that after he completes certain portions of his 
investigation he said, yes, you can, and we can go forward with it. And 
the Republican group that was there said we will wait until June.
  I think it ought to be left there. Everybody understands that it is a 
different situation. Everybody understands we have a special counsel. 
Everybody understands that he has the support of the party on the other 
side of the aisle, particularly the junior Senator from New York.
  Oh, I understand. I am not as good as he is. He can jump up and down 
and stay there all night and make speeches and do those sorts of 
things. But the facts are the facts, and I think it is time now that we 
try to get on with the business of the Chamber and let the individual 
do his job, instead of trying to make the headlines in the newspaper 
every day.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. FORD. I am not sure I can answer it, but without losing the right 
to the floor, Mr. President, I will yield.
  Mr. D'AMATO. First of all, I thank my colleagues and thank Senator 
Ford. I think that maybe there is a ray of sunshine in his remarks, at 
least I detect, and maybe I have not seen it before.
  Mr. FORD. There may be a ray of sunshine in the Senator's remarks. 
Get on with it. Maybe we can call it quits.
  Mr. D'AMATO. If I take from what you indicate, the fact that you 
recognize it, that we did indicate that as it related to certain 
aspects of the independent counsel review, and the indication he would 
have it wrapped up and he would have no objection, provided, as we had 
indicated, that we were not going to attempt to give immunity to anyone 
thereafter, that minimized his concerns--I am quoting him--that 
minimized his concerns. He felt that was reasonable, and he said it. He 
said to Senators Cohen and D'Amato, it is reasonable.
  So if the response is that the deputy majority leader, the whip on 
the other side, believes that my Democratic colleagues would be willing 
then to go forth within a 2-month period of time, or after he has 
undertaken the examination, as he has indicated, of some of the events 
he thinks he can wrap up within a matter of weeks or a month or 2 
months, and that is why I mentioned--I used the dateline, certainly--by 
at least June 1 if we could then undertake these reviews in an 
appropriate manner, that to me is a realistic answer. And if the 
Senator is saying he is prepared to at least negotiate that----
  Mr. FORD. I am not prepared to tell the Senator anything today, one, 
because Mr. Fiske has not completed his investigation yet.
  The Senator came out today, started accusing people at the White 
House, telling them how wrong they had been, and he has condemned them 
before Mr. Fiske has made a judgment.
  Mr. D'AMATO. No; I have not.
  Mr. FORD. Yes; the Senator has. We have read the Record. We read the 
Record. The Senator talked about Mr. Altman and all those at the White 
House.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Yes.
  Mr. FORD. The Senator condemned by his speech on the floor today, day 
after day after day after day. I say it is time to quit.
  Even the special counsel that the Senator asked for, he has. And the 
one he has is one that he made great tribute to. Now let him do his 
work. The Senator does not have to continue coming out here every day 
to make a speech and condemn everybody, condemn everybody.
  It is time to stop. Let us get on with the legislation. Let us get on 
with the job at hand.
  If the Senator would spend more time working on legislation and less 
time working on what is going on at the White House he probably could 
represent New York a whole lot better.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me suggest as it relates to advising 
people how to represent their State, I will take my direction from the 
people of the State.
  Let me also suggest that I came to the floor not to be incendiary--I 
do not think I was--and I pointed out that the central element of 
democracy, as in a statement made by the majority leader, is that we 
should go forward and show the sunlight, and there was a way in which 
to do this and not to impede the special counsel.
  Indeed, we are not going to wait, and this Senator simply will not 
sit back and say we have to wait until all is done, whether it be 1 
year from now, 1\1/2\ years from now, 2 years from now. But there is a 
way, as suggested by the New York Times and other editorial writers, 
that even Special Counsel Sam Dash, a learned professor of law, said we 
learned; you just do not grant immunity. And if Congress is willing to 
do that, it really has a right to go forward and a responsibility and a 
duty, and that is what I am suggesting.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? I 
yielded to him a moment ago.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I will yield without giving up the floor. I will yield 
for a question.
  Mr. FORD. He is referring to Sam Dash here several times this 
afternoon. Sam Dash said on TV the other night that you cannot prove 
any criminal activity, and you did not know what went on. Yet the 
Senator comes over here and says these things. And Sam Dash said you 
better take a step back and wait and let Mr. Fiske make his judgment. 
Once he makes his judgment, then you will have the facts. Right now you 
are talking about the unknown. Everybody knows that when you walk 
through the cemetery at midnight there is a ghost behind every 
tombstone.
  I think it is about time we stop walking through the cemetery.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I might say, and maybe my distinguished 
friend and colleague is at a disadvantage and not aware of the fact 
that Mr. Dash was aware of Senator Cohen and my meeting with special 
counsel, and he was made aware of that and indicated today on 
television on ``Good Morning America'' on a program on which we both 
appeared. I did not know he was going to appear or what he was going to 
say. I quote: ``I see no problem in Congress holding a hearing, if 
Senator D'Amato and other Members of Congress acted responsibly.'' And 
he was talking about the fact, and he went on to say, that the big 
problem was when Congress granted immunity.
  He also said, and I quote:

       We have a democracy. The ultimate concern of the people and 
     Congress is an agency given the power and right to inform the 
     public on how the Government is working and how much the 
     Executive Branch is working.

  Oh, no. The fact of the matter is here that it is not good enough to 
say, look, it was a goof off as related to Iran-Contra and, therefore, 
we should not have any congressional hearing. Oh, no. There is the 
blur, the blur; the fine distinction as it relates to the fact that 
whether or not Congress said we are going to go ahead willy-nilly how 
much we want, wherever we want, and grant immunity to everybody we 
want.
  I think we learned, and that is why he said to the counsel and why he 
said he felt assured, he felt better. He said that he felt that we made 
progress in this, so we are not just demanding we go busting in.
  But to say no, you are politicizing. The Senator says we want to 
recognize his role.
  Let me suggest is there any politics? There is just as much politics. 
Of course, there are politics in this body. Let us not be naive. There 
are politics from both sides.
  But to just simply say, no, this is driven by politics would ignore 
the fact that it was as a result of our asking questions that finally 
the special counsel was appointed. It was a result of a public hearing 
that finally we learned of not one meeting but two meetings and three 
meetings, and Lord knows we never would have learned of those meetings 
that took place and the question as to whether there was interference 
with an independent administrative agency.
  So I think we have gone over it enough. I did not intend to engage in 
an extended debate or speech as it relates to this, and I apologize to 
my colleagues, the chairman of the committee, for going beyond the 10 
minutes. I did not intend to do that.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________