[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.

                          ____________________