[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 27 (Friday, March 11, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                               WHITEWATER

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the reason I say I respect the admonition 
of the majority leader is that I intend to speak on the issue of 
Whitewater, and I did note that both the majority leader, the assistant 
majority leader, and other Senators, during the course of consideration 
of this legislation, have come to the floor to speak on the Whitewater 
issue. That is why I do not have any conscience pangs about doing so.
  I speak from a special perspective, Mr. President, as one who 
underwent an Ethics Committee investigation by this body where 
proceedings went on, including televised hearings, while at the same 
time the subject of the accusation, Mr. Charles Keating by name, was 
undergoing investigation and prosecution. It certainly did not impede 
the process of the Ethics Committee investigation of me and four of my 
colleagues at that time.
  I just use that as an example of a special relationship I have with 
this kind of issue.
  I would note that during the Reagan and Bush administrations there 
were at least 30 hearings of investigations of alleged improprieties by 
administration officials or their family members. Some of these persons 
were being investigated by a special prosecutor as well. During this 
time there were also a number of congressional hearings involving 
matters that were also the subject of ongoing criminal investigations.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle seemed undeterred from 
going forward then. At that time the good of the Nation was at stake. 
Now, somehow, calls for public disclosures smell of politics.
  It is certainly true that hasty and ill-conceived congressional 
hearings could adversely affect Mr. Fiske's criminal investigation, and 
he would prefer the Congress not to hold hearings. I respect Mr. 
Fiske's views and share his concerns, but I also believe they can be 
readily addressed.
  In fact, no Republican Member of this body has suggested that we take 
any action that would unduly interfere with the special prosecutor 
investigation.
  Senator D'Amato and Senator Cohen met with Mr. Fiske and stated 
categorically that the Republicans did not intend to grant immunity, as 
was the case with the botched Iran-Contra hearings. Moreover, they have 
emphasized that Republicans were more than willing to wait to obtain 
testimony from witnesses until after Mr. Fiske and his staff had taken 
testimony from them so as not to color their appearance before a grand 
jury in any way.
  Finally, they made it clear that Congress would work with the special 
prosecutor to ensure that witnesses that should not publicly testify 
before Congress would not be called.
  I think it should also be noted, however, that the Supreme Court, in 
Hutcheson versus United States, specifically contemplated that a 
congressional inquiry and a criminal investigation into the same matter 
could co-exist.
  I am confident that we will be able to structure oversight hearings 
that will help uncover the facts that the American people are entitled 
to know, without imperiling Mr. Fiske's investigation. Indeed, I would 
submit that carefully structured hearings will almost certainly enhance 
the ability of the special prosecutor to complete his assigned task. As 
all America now knows, the information regarding meetings between the 
White House officials and regulatory officials came to light only after 
questioning by Members of the Senate in a committee hearing. These 
disclosures directly led to the issuance by Mr. Fiske of subpoenas to a 
number of administration officials. The additional sunlight shown on 
this issue by congressional hearings will augment Mr. Fiske's limited 
resources.
  Mr. President, while the integrity of Mr. Fiske's investigation is 
crucial, and we will do everything to ensure that integrity, there is a 
much more fundamental issue at stake. The issue of overriding 
importance in this matter is Congress' responsibility to the American 
people and to inform the public about the operation of their 
Government.
  Mr. Fiske has a relatively narrow mandate--to investigate and 
determine whether there has been any criminal wrongdoing--not to 
determine whether Government officials are abusing the public trust or 
acting in an unethical manner. Yes, we should let him do his job--find 
out whether anyone has committed a crime.
  But Congress is concerned--must be concerned--about much more than 
criminal conduct. It is Congress' responsibility to ensure that elected 
and appointed public servants in Government are adhering to the highest 
standards of integrity and upholding the public trust. Ultimately, our 
constitutional democracy rests on a fragile foundation of public faith 
and trust in the institutions of Government.
  Are we to sit idly by, as apparently some of my colleagues want, and 
wait for Mr. Fiske to complete his investigation of criminal 
misconduct--which could take many months--when there are already 
serious allegations of ethical misconduct, something that Mr. Fiske has 
no jurisdiction over?
  Are the American people well served by allowing individuals who may 
have abused the public trust to go unquestioned for a period of months 
or even years? Of course not. So, while Mr. Fiske does his job, we must 
do ours.
  Although some of my colleagues might hope that it were otherwise, 
there is ample historical, legal, and constitutional justification for 
Congress to hold investigative hearings in just these kinds of 
circumstances and inform the public as to the true facts involved.
  Sam Dash, the eminent legal scholar and former Watergate prosecutor, 
made exactly this point yesterday morning on one of the network shows. 
When asked about the propriety of Congress holding hearings on 
Whitewater he responded, and I quote:

       Well, I'm not sure they're necessary at the time unless the 
     Congress feels that they need facts, one, to see if their 
     present laws are working well or if they need new laws, and, 
     again, Congress has a very important constitutional function 
     that the Supreme Court has held, and that is to keep the 
     public informed.
       We have a democracy. The ultimate sovereign is the people. 
     And Congress is the agency that is given the power and the 
     right and the duty to inform the public on how the Government 
     is working, how the executive branch is working.
       So I see no problem, by the way, in Congress holding 
     hearings. I think it was a reasonable request on the special 
     counsel's part, and I think Senator D'Amato and the other 
     members of Congress have acted responsibly.

  More importantly, this is also the view held by the highest Court in 
the land. In a seminal case involving the investigations of the House 
Committee on Un-American Activities, Watkins versus United States, the 
esteemed Chief Earl Warren wrote on behalf of the Supreme Court:

       The public is, of course, entitled to be informed 
     concerning the workings of its government.

  Woodrow Wilson, in his book ``Congressional Government,'' put it most 
succinctly, when he wrote:

       The informing function of Congress should be preferred even 
     to its legisaltive function.

  Mr. President, I would like to quote from another statement that I 
believe is relevant to this issue. It was made by the now Vice 
President, then Senator from Tennessee, almost 3 years ago concerning 
the October Surprise matter. The Vice President said:

       The evidence which has thus far trickled into the public 
     domain is still fragmentary. Much of it is circumstantial, 
     but it is compelling. If the allegations are not true, the 
     country needs to know they are not true. If they are true, 
     the country needs to know that as well.
       I believe the air needs to be cleared. So, I am today 
     calling for a formal investigation of these charges and 
     allegations without prejudging what that investigation might 
     find, but believing deeply that it needs to take place in 
     order to establish the truth or falsehood of the allegations 
     that have been made.

  These words were spoken by our former colleague, the Vice President, 
on the floor of the Senate almost 3 years ago, when Democrats were 
clamoring for a congressional investigation into the so-called October 
Surprise matter. They are just as relevant today.
  I might remind my colleagues, there was clearly no basis for any 
hearing on the October Surprise.
  Mr. President, Republicans did not place a cloud over the 
administration--the administration did that themselves. Calling efforts 
to resolve that cloud by getting the facts out to the public in a 
timely fashion political partisanship is the height of hypocrisy by 
some and a copout by others. I would also note that it is not just 
Republicans that believe congressional hearings are appropriate, but 
virtually every newspaper editorial board in the country.
  It was the New York Times which opined on the slovenly ethics of the 
administration. It was the New Republic, hardly a bastion of Republican 
defenders, which said that ``the current strategy of slow-motion 
revelation--`let the special counsel do its job'--hardly serves the 
interests of the administration.''
  Mr. President, in today's Washington Post there is a very interesting 
article by Mr. Krauthammer. I quote from his article.

       Republicans are now demanding Whitewater hearings. The 
     Democrats, having seen how much damage was done in half a 
     day, continue to stonewall. This is the same party that in 
     1990 had the House Banking Committee spend two days in public 
     hearings on Neil Bush's involvement in the collapsed 
     Silverado S&L. At the time, Democrats were gleeful about 
     making Bush the ``S&L poster boy.'' Now that the S&L poster 
     girl might turn out to be named Clinton, they express deep 
     concern about the partisanship of such hearings.
       This is the same party that bathed the country in Iran-
     Contra hearings. That put every syllable of Anita Hill's 
     charges against Clarence Thomas on national TV. That even saw 
     fit to hold hearings on a total fiction, the so-called 
     October Surprise.

  Mr. President, Mr. Krauthammer goes on to say:

       The prosecutor's interest is prosecution. The public 
     interest is disclosure. The prosecutor tries to find breaches 
     of law. The public needs to know about breaches of trust. The 
     public's interest in Whitewater is not, say, to see Hillary 
     Clinton or her Rose law partners on trial. It is to find out 
     simply what happened.

  Mr. President, I suggest that we are nearing a point in the history 
of this country where hearings are called for if simply only to get on 
with the business of Government.
  All Americans agree that we have serious and crucial issues that we 
have to face. And if we are in a perilous situation where the bleeding 
does not stop and we are treated on a daily basis to new and 
titillating allegations in the media, we need to have these hearings in 
order to get the business of Government back on track again.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues. I yield 
back the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kerrey). The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________