[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 56 (Tuesday, May 10, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                         A DIVERGENCE OF VALUES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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, a few days ago Newsweek published an 
article the likes of which I have never seen before concerning a 
current President. Titled ``The Politics of Promiscuity,'' it examines 
the basic question of President Clinton's character. Despite the title, 
it is not a sleazy story. It is not a partisan story. What it is, is a 
lamentable story, and regrettably, in the case of this White House, an 
unending one.
  The article's author, Joe Klein, writes that:

       Paula Jones' story will join the rising landfill of 
     allegations of personal misbehavior that Bill Clinton has had 
     to deny, deflect, defend, derail. It has heft only because 
     there have been so many others, and because it reinforces a 
     widely held suspicion about the precise nature of the 
     president's problem.

  Klein continues, ``It seems increasingly, and sadly, apparent that 
the character flaw Bill Clinton's enemies have fixed upon--
promiscuity--is a defining characteristic of his public life as well.''
  The Newsweek author is not talking about promiscuity's most common 
meaning, but its fullest meaning--casual or irregular behavior. Whether 
at home or abroad, this kind of careless, cavalier conduct has been the 
trademark of this administration.
  As Klein observes, the result is--

       With the Clintons, the story always is subject to further 
     revision. The misstatements are always incremental. The 
     ``misunderstanding'' are always innocent--casual, irregular: 
     promiscuous. Trust is squandered in dribs and drabs.

  The President has gone so long down this road that he has come to the 
point where he must hire superlawyer Bob Bennett to address the mess. 
When you hire a superlawyer, you have superproblems. Bennett will be 
trying to salvage the President's reputation. He will have his work cut 
out for him.
  Never before in my memory has an administration been so lacking in 
its understanding of the basic values that the rest of America holds 
dear.
  President Clinton's financial dealings are a case in point. Recently, 
Presidents have put their assets in the hands of others while in 
office. Today we find that we have gone from Presidents who put their 
faith in blind trusts, to a President who puts his faith in trust being 
blind.
  The President has insisted that he lost money on his financial 
transactions and he believes that should be the end of the discussion. 
I am sure every accused criminal ever caught would love to equate 
failure with innocence. However, the fact that the President's defense 
has been that his transactions were unsuccessful only indicates he does 
not understand the question of impropriety.
  The question is not whether money was made, but why was he involved 
in the first place? And the answer is that he had no business doing 
business with people whose business it was his business to regulate.
  If this fault were the only lapse--or if the administration's faults 
were only lapses--then there would not be such a cause for concern. But 
as the administration's faults continue to mount and continue to erode 
America's foundations, it becomes daily more obvious that they are not 
lapses. They are not strayings from a shared path of principles, but a 
new route of questionable rights and values altogether.
  With each passing incident, the American people discover a divergence 
of values with this administration--that the White House's way is is 
not their way, or the way they were led to believe the administration 
would follow.
  The Newsweek article observes President Clinton tells his closest 
advisers that ``character is a journey, not a destination.'' Klein 
writes:

       This evolutionary notion of character is something of a 
     finesse: it can drift from explaining lapses to excusing 
     them. There is an adolescent, unformed, half-baked quality to 
     it--as there is to the notion of promiscuity itself: an 
     inability to settle, to stand, to commit. It will not suffice 
     in a president.

  Klein concludes:

       Life is a journey; but character, most assuredly, is not. 
     It is a destination most adults reach, for good or ill. And 
     it is both tragic and quite dangerous that we find ourselves 
     asking if Bill Clinton will ever get there.

  The fact is this administration drifts aimlessly, hoisting the sail 
of ``promise'' and the jib of ``change'' to catch whatever breeze is 
blowing, regardless of where it might lead, at the same time sailing 
farther and farther from the course set by the American people.
  When the crew spends more time bailing than rowing, the boat is in 
trouble. When the administration spends more time explaining than 
governing, the Nation is in trouble. To the clear question of 
character, the Clinton administration doesn't appear to have an answer, 
only explanations.

                          ____________________