[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 16, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: March 16, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
WHITEWATER
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on March 9, the majority leader stated
that those Republicans, like myself, who want Congress to conduct
hearings into the Whitewater matter, are engaging only ``in partisan
politics at its worst,'' and that such hearings risk ``fatal damage''
to the special counsel's ongoing investigation. Our leader then said
that we have an important oversight responsibility but we must defer
that responsibility at the request of the special counsel. The leader
invoked the name and arguments of the less than illustrious Lawrence
Walsh, former special prosecutor of the Iran-Contra investigation, as
authority for Congress to defer hearings pending the outcome of the
special counsel's investigation.
Mr. President, I certainly admire our majority leader. I think he is
doing an extraordinary job as he has always done, but I do not at all
admire Lawrence Walsh. It is obvious that Mr. Walsh would want to blame
Congress for his dismiss record. He cost the taxpayer over $35 million
over a period of 6 years and came up with almost nothing. I for one
pray that Mr. Fiske will not be another Lawrence Walsh. If he becomes
one, then we will look foolish by standing idly by at the behest of
another branch of Government, watching the taxpayers' money being
wasted.
No, Mr. President, I am not going to rely on the weak authority of
Lawrence Walsh. Instead, I look to recent history, as well as the
Watergate experience, to guide my argument that Congress can and should
engage in appropriate oversight at the same time a special counsel does
his work.
Mr. President, if we can go back to 1973 and 1974, we recall Senator
Sam Ervin and Senator Howard Baker. They led their committee through
months of hearings into a myriad of complex issues that have become
known today as Watergate. The committee took testimony from those who
were also targets of special counsels Archibald Cox and later Leon
Jaworski, who became special counsel after the President fired Mr. Cox.
But unlike the recent, ill-fated work of Mr. Walsh, the special counsel
in Watergate succeeded in convicting numerous officials for substantive
offenses. This was accomplished even though Congress was deeply
involved in both Senate and House oversight and impeachment hearings.
More recently, Mr. President, in 1992, Congress conducted
investigations into the Banco Nationale, BNL bank scandal. The Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence, which I was a member of for 8 years
and was ranking member, worked for months to learn whether the CIA
misjudged Justice Department prosecutors or withheld important
information in the prosecution of the BNL bank official in Atlanta.
During the same period, the House Banking Committee, under Chairman
Gonzalez was unrelenting in its zeal to hold hearings on BNL and became
particularly excited over this issue during the height of the
Presidential campaign. In fact, excitement was so high that a special
counsel was appointed by Attorney General Barr to look into many of the
same issues we were investigating in the Committee on Intelligence. We
did not stop our inquiry though, Mr. President, after Judge Lacey was
appointed special counsel. We simply did our thing and he did his
thing. I do not recall our majority leader objecting to this
simultaneous activity during the 1992 Presidential campaign.
Mr. President, if Republicans are being accused of politicking
because we are asking for Whitewater oversight investigations, then our
friends on the other side of the aisle must be inclined to blush a
little bit when they look into the mirror of history. Who called for
those silly and costly hearings to look into the so-called October
surprise? I know of few Republicans who wanted to look into that
nonsense. But at a time, you will recall, when George Bush was riding
high in public opinion polls following the victory against Iraq, and
there was an unrelenting drumbeat of demand for congressional hearings
into whether Ronald Reagan's campaign urged the Iranians to delay the
release of American hostages until after the 1980 election. This
drumbeat for hearings came 11 or 12 years after the alleged incident
and it was so unrelenting that the Foreign Relations Committee
eventually agreed to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on
worthless hearings. There was no ``October surprise.'' Nor was there
any political surprise in all this thrashing around, because there was
only one motivation to hold hearings, to tweak the Republicans.
Can Congress engage in oversight during an investigation by a special
counsel? Of course we can. We are certainly able to set our agenda,
establish our timetable for hearings, determine issues relating to
immunity for witnesses, decide when to subpoena documents, and control
all the other facets involved in oversight hearings. We can do all this
by conferring with special counsel. We can accommodate legitimate
concerns of witnesses and others. We do not have to get tangled in the
operations of a grand jury. As I saw firsthand when I was vice chairman
of the Intelligence Committee, a special counsel and an aggressive
oversight committee can do their work simultaneous by being considerate
of the special needs of each other. We did in the BNL investigation,
even when a criminal prosecution was pending in Atlanta.
What we must not do is abdicate our constitutional responsibilities.
This is a Government of three equal branches. Mr. Fiske and Attorney
General Reno work for the executive branch. We serve in the legislative
branch. Mr. Fiske should not dictate my actions, nor those of the
Democrats in this body. I seriously doubt whether the majority leader
or any Senate Democrat would defer investigating a serious matter if a
special counsel in a Republican administration asked them to do so.
So let us not all be so pious. Let us understand that history shows
that we can do our work at the same time special counsels do theirs.
Sam Ervin, Howard Baker, and Leon Jaworski did. Senator Boren and I did
along with Judge Lacey. I have every confidence that Senator D'Amato,
Senator Riegle, and Mr. Fiske can do the same thing.
I do not rely on Lawrence Walsh to support a contrary view. He is
looking for excuses for his failures. We are looking for answers to
Whitewater.
Finally, Mr. President, as a final thought, I am becoming somewhat
troubled by the rather ugly nature of the discussion of the Whitewater
matter.
Those of us who want to know the facts about Whitewater and the
failed savings and loan are accused of engaging in politics at its
worst.
Those of us who do not want Congress to abdicate its legitimate role
in oversight are being accused of threatening the work of the special
counsel. We are even told that the special counsel dictates the timing
of our work, not us.
But, what disturbs me even more are the personal attacks by the
chairman of the Democratic Party, David Wilhelm, against three Members
of the Senate: Senator D'Amato, who is here on the floor, Senator Gramm
of Texas, and Senator Dole, the Republican leader. Mr. Wilhelm asserted
that none of these Senators should ask questions about Whitewater
because he implied that they have engaged in some unethical behavior.
Senator D'Amato has called Wilhelm's comments despicable, and indeed
they are. Senator Dole told Wilhelm to file a ethics complaint if he
has evidence of misconduct. That is an appropriate comment, of course,
he will not do it, because he does not have such evidence.
In statesmen-like responses, both Majority Leader Mitchell and
Speaker Tom Foley have been critical of Wilhelm's statements, and they
have distanced themselves from those gratuitous attacks by the head of
the Democratic Party.
But, Mr. President, it is astounding to me that the head of the
Democratic Party has attempted to intimidate Members of the Senate. I
can only assume Mr. Wilhelm seeks to silence the three Senators,
otherwise why would he have made such a vicious attack? Or, was he
merely attempting to deflect attention away from the White House by
using whatever tactic he could or whatever is handy?
I am afraid such attempts at intimidation will not work. None of the
Senators Mr. Wilhelm attacked will be silenced. In fact, as Senator
D'Amato wrote to Mr. Wilhelm: ``You can be sure that I will now
redouble my efforts to get to the bottom of this Whitewater-Madison
scandal.''
Let us also not forget how we all learned about the meetings between
RTC officials and the White House: We did not learn about them from the
White House. We did not learn about the meetings from the general
counsel of the Treasury Department. We did not learn about them from
the press. We did not learn about these meetings from Mr. Wilhelm. We
did not learn about them from the Justice Department. No, we learned
about them through the efforts of Senator D'Amato and Senator Riegle
and the Banking Committee hearings, as we should.
The fact that at least three meetings took place between the
regulators and White House staff ultimately led the President finally
to request a special counsel. In fact, he had no other choice. These
meetings simply could not be explained without embarrassment.
No, Mr. President, the proof of the value of oversight is the
discovery of the meetings at the White House. Senator D'Amato's
persistence should be commended. Instead, his character is attacked by
the head of the Democratic Party.
Mr. Wilhelm, save your attacks. They will not work. Whitewater will
not go away until all facts are known. You can try to intimidate those
who have dared learn the truth, but ultimately the American public will
demand to know. That is how democracy works, Mr. Wilhelm.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I was unaware of the fact that my friend
and colleague, Senator Murkowski from Alaska, was going to make these
remarks, and I must thank him.
I think he has articulated my position. I think it should be the
position of all Members, Democrats, and Republicans, that no Member
should be attacked, he or she personally should not be attacked, on a
personal basis because they may make a request that any of us agree or
disagree with.
We can oppose, whether it is my request or anybody else's, but if we
are going to begin to engage or countenance or support this kind of
vicious, ugly smear, that is beneath us, certainly beneath the dignity
of this Senate.
I am not generally described as a shrinking violet, but I have to
tell you that I think that kind of a political smear goes back to the
days of the dirty tricks, and this smearing will not keep me quiet. I
will persist.
I am not the issue. The issue is whether my request for hearings has
any validity.
It is not the messenger who should be attacked. If the message is not
one which people agree with; fine, take it up. But if we are going to
get into the business of going after the messenger, or going after, in
this case, a Senator who feels it is his obligation--in spite of the
fact that we become lightning rods, I understand the realities of
political combat. I understand fair play and I understand rough-and-
tumble play.
But I just suggest to those who would attempt to move into that, that
we do the process a great disservice. Whether you agree with what my
request is or disagree, there are ways to make known your opposition
and to articulate all of our positions without getting into the
personal attacks.
So I thank my friend who, again, early on--when there were very few
others who saw the merit and now are attempting to just get the facts--
loaned himself in his efforts personally to coming down to the floor
and support bringing out and gaining access to the facts and the
information.
So, again, I thank my friend from Alaska.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. RIEGLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
____________________