[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 45 (Thursday, April 21, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                 WHITEWATER AND THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, one of the disturbing things 
about the Whitewater investigation is that we feel like there is a 
thorough investigation taking place, and then we hear things that lead 
us to believe that investigation is not thorough.
  Let me give you a couple of examples. We heard that Mr. Fiske, a 
Republican, was picked after President Clinton and his wife said they 
did not want a special counsel. Mr. Fiske was picked by the Justice 
Department, Janet Reno, because he was an independent thinker and he 
was Republican. Then we find out over the period of the next several 
months that Mr. Fiske is not really that independent, or it appears he 
is not that independent, because he has had very close ties with one of 
the chief aids of President Clinton, Mr. Bernie Nussbaum. When they 
both served as lawyers in New York City, they worked together on a 
number of cases.
  I wrote a letter to Mr. Fiske asking about this information. He 
responded. He sent the letter back to me. He answered Federal Express. 
He said, yes, I did have some association with Mr. Nussbaum but it was 
strictly professional.
  Second, Mr. Fiske, the counsel investigating Whitewater, recommended 
Bernie Nussbaum, the right-hand man of President Clinton, to be the 
assistant counsel during the Iran-Contra investigation. That shows that 
he and Mr. Nussbaum were fairly good friends. Otherwise he would not 
have recommended him to be assistant counsel on one of the most 
celebrated cases involving the Government of the United States in the 
last 15 to 20 years.
  Third, Mr. Fiske recommended Louis Freeh, the district attorney for 
New York, to be the head of the FBI. Mr. Freeh, I understand, is a man 
with impeccable credentials and one who is doing a fine job. 
Nevertheless, Mr. Fiske, the man who is investigating Whitewater, 
called Mr. Nussbaum and the people at the White House and recommended 
Mr. Freeh for that job.
  Finally, one of the most disconcerting things is that Mr. Fiske's law 
firm represented a company called International Paper, and 
International Paper sold several hundred acres to the Whitewater 
Development Corp. for $500,000.
  Now, we asked for an independent counsel to investigate this case. 
And grudgingly, it was approved by the Justice Department and the White 
House. Now we find out that the gentleman who is conducting the 
investigation knows Mr. Nussbaum, the right-hand man of Mr. Clinton. He 
recommended him to be the assistant counsel in the Iran-Contra 
investigation. He recommended Louis Freeh to be the head of the FBI. 
His company, his law firm represented the International Paper Co. that 
sold hundreds of acres of land to Whitewater.
  This might all be coincidence, but my question is, should we not have 
somebody in this position right now who is above any suspicion 
whatsoever? I mean, there are thousands of prosecutors across this 
country who could have done this job that have no connection to Mr. 
Nussbaum or the White House. Yet Janet Reno, the Attorney General of 
the United States, picked this gentleman.
  We recommended, when we were investigating Ron Brown, seven different 
people, Democrats and Republicans, former Attorneys General and chief 
prosecutors, to investigate the Ron Brown affair. We were stonewalled 
then. We are being stonewalled again.
  Madam Speaker, I am very concerned that the American people want to 
have all of this answered. They want to have this investigation 
concluded. They do not want it to drag on for months and months and 
months like the Watergate investigation or the Iran-Contra 
investigation.
  All the President has to do is give the Congress of the United States 
the right to have a hearing on this. We had 23 hearings during the 
Reagan and Bush administrations. This is more onerous. This is more 
disconcerting to the Congress and the American people than any of those 
investigations were. We need to get to the bottom of it.
  I just say to my colleagues and to the Speaker that the President, if 
he has nothing to hide, let us have the investigation. Let us get this 
behind us so the American people can once again have complete 
confidence in the President and in the Presidency. I think it is 
extremely important.
  Mr. DORNAN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. DORNAN. Madam Speaker, one of the things that mystifies me, and I 
am sure it does my colleague from California, is why we are 
stonewalling here on the majority side to end up probably with hearings 
in the early fall or late summer, right as we are going into an 
election period.
  Here is the front page story, and I do not know if the gentleman saw 
it today, in the Washington Post, the east coast liberal paper of 
record, along with the New York Times.'' Listen to this headline: 
``Whitewater Repossesions.'' The subheading is ``Sales Practice 
Benefitting Clintons and Partners,'' by two reporters, Howard Schneider 
and Susan Schmidt.

       For 3 years Clyde Soapes, Jr., a Texas grain elevator 
     operator, regularly mailed monthly payments to the Whitewater 
     Development Corp. for a lot along Arkansas' White River, 
     where he planned to build a fishing cottage.

  He paid $244.69 and made 35 installment payments over 3 years, and by 
the way, he had put $3,000 down. Then he got diabetes. He did die 
eventually, and it was repossessed by the McDougals and the Clintons. 
They wiped the man out, and his family.
  They would resell it, repossess it again, resell it, and none of this 
seems to be recorded. Imagine this front page story today, coming out 
in hearings in a few months.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, the gentleman has a special 
order coming up. Could I impose upon him for a few minutes to conclude 
my special order.
  Mr. DORNAN. Yes, Madam Speaker, right at the top, I would be happy 
to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mrs. Unsoeld]. The time of the gentleman 
from Indiana has expired.

                          ____________________