[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 28 (Tuesday, March 15, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 15, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                     CLINTON'S WHITE-HOT WHITEWATER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Johnson of Georgia). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of February 11, 1994, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Smith] is recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the White House has taken Whitewater 
from white lies to whitewash to white knuckles. Now Webster Hubbell, 
the No. 3 person at the Department of Justice, has left. He follows the 
White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum. As yet another shoe falls, it is 
hard to believe that this case doesn't have more legs than a centipede.
  This most recent revelation raises more questions to the ever-
lengthening list. By all accounts, Hubbell had a major role in running 
the Justice Department. Even before he was officially in place, he 
seemed to be the White House's chief contact and coordinator at 
Justice. He played a role in the firing of all 50 U.S. attorneys.
  These are the same firings that have hindered investigations into 
alleged wrongdoings here in the House of Representatives.
  Everywhere these actions are raising more questions, everywhere they 
are front-page news. For instance, today, USA Today's top story reads, 
``Clinton's Friend Quits Justice Job.''
  The Washington Times says, ``Hubbell Resigns Post, Cites 
Distractions. His Rose law firm dealings remains under investigation.''
  The Washington Post today, ``Hubbell Resigns at Justice in Rose Law 
Firm Dispute. Accused of Overbilling Clients, Improper Expenses.'' In 
the New York Times:

       Senior Official Quits Justice Post as Pressure Rises. 
     Ethics Are Questioned. Webster Hubbell, an old friend, leaves 
     to spare the Clinton's further embarrassment.

  Everywhere these issues are important--except in this institution. 
The problem seems to be that it is the wrong party calling for hearings 
and the wrong party being investigated. So scandal after scandal tiptoe 
past this sleeping watchdog. There was a House bank scandal. Then a 
House post office scandal. Then there was a new administration which 
immediately began adding to the list.
  They started off with a scandal in the White House travel office. 
They have added the questionable handling of the suicide of a top White 
House aide. They have still left large numbers of their appointed posts 
unfilled. And we find large numbers of the appointees that are in place 
lack basic security clearances. Then of course, there is Whitewater. 
And the seemingly endless number of issues that it is spawning.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a moment to read to you from 
an article by the gentleman from Iowa, Representative Jim Leach, the 
ranking Republican on the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 
Affairs:

       In a nutshell, Whitewater is about the arrogance of power--
     political conflicts of interest that are self-evidently 
     unseemly. It all began in the late 1970s when an S&L owner 
     named James McDougal formed a 50-50 real estate venture with 
     a young politician, the then-attorney general of Arkansas, 
     Bill Clinton. In this venture called Whitewater, the S&L 
     owner and S&L subsidiaries provided virtually all, perhaps 
     all, the money; the governor-in-the-making provided his name.
       Over the years, the company received infusions of cash from 
     the S&L as well as from a small business investment 
     corporation that diverted, allegedly at the governor's 
     request, federally guaranteed funds from a program designed 
     for socially and economically disadvantaged people to the 
     governor's partners and thence, in part, to Whitewater.
       Some of these funds were used to pay off personal and 
     campaign liabilities of the governor; some to purchase a 
     tract of land from a company to which the state had just 
     given a significant tax break. Whitewater records have 
     apparently been largely lost. A review of the numerous land 
     transactions, however, raises questions of what happened to 
     the money that came into the company and a review of the 
     president's tax records raises questions about tax deductions 
     that were taken and taxes that were not paid.
       It is no surprise that Special Counsel Robert Fiske, Jr. 
     initiated March 4 a series of subpoenas reaching into the 
     White House. What these subpoenas indicate is the movement of 
     an investigation from possible illegal acts committed by a 
     president prior to taking office to possible illegal actions 
     committed in office. Obstruction of justice is now clearly at 
     issue.
       There are simply too many questions with too few answers.
       The point of all this is that there is a disjunction in 
     this administration between public policy and private ethics. 
     Americans abhor privilege; hypocrisy gnaws at the American 
     soul; it leaves a dispiriting residue of resentment.
       Can, for instance, a president credibly rail against 
     Michael Milken values if he has himself benefited from 
     Milkenesque dealmaking?
       Can a president credibly ask the people to pay taxes, let 
     alone raise them, if he refuses to pay his own fair share?
       Can a president credibly espouse open government if he 
     applies a hide-and-seek standard to his own actions?
       Can a president ask others to play by the rules--i.e., obey 
     the law--if he doesn't play by them himself?
       Can a president credibly advance an ethic of national 
     service if his own model is one of self-service?
       Can a president credibly advocate campaign reform if his 
     own campaign has been sullied by illegal contributions from 
     an S&L, which, with its failure, had the effect of causing 
     deferred federal financing of a gubernatorial election?
       Can a president credibly lead an ethical society if he 
     doesn't set an ethical standard?

  Despite all these questions, Congress has slept serenely in a shroud 
of secrecy. The same people who thought Whitewater not worthy of an 
independent counsel also cannot be troubled to hold even one hearing.

                          ____________________