[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 25, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                               WHITEWATER

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am a new Member of this body. I have 
not been here through much of the past history that my colleagues are 
referring to here. But I want to make some observations about some of 
those ideas.
  The majority leader almost persuades me that we should not pursue 
this matter. I can understand why the Members of his party have picked 
him as their primary spokesman, because he is eloquent, well-informed, 
he is persistent and, when necessary, he can be very tough. He is also, 
I hasten to add, very fair. As a member of the minority party, I am 
grateful that we have a majority leader who has that characteristic.
  I say he ``almost'' persuades me, but he does not. The reason he does 
not, Mr. President, is that he is arguing a narrow argument which, 
standing by itself, shorn of legislative history, might be an 
acceptable argument. But he ignores the context in which the argument 
is placed. I can understand that. I have made arguments like that 
myself from time to time; it is very useful.
  The fact of the matter is that we have established--we, the 
Congress--by precedent a set of rules. They may not be written and, 
therefore, the majority leader can ignore them because they are not 
written in the rule book. He can make his specific legalistic points 
out of the rule book and be very persuasive. Nonetheless, rules 
established by precedence and practice are binding. We see that in this 
body. There are things we do in this body that are in violation of the 
Senate rules; we do them nonetheless, because they have been 
established by precedent and, therefore, we do not upset the precedent; 
we go ahead.
  The precedent that has been established with respect to congressional 
investigations is very clear. It has been referred to here again and 
again and again. I may not like it, I may prefer a more pristine time 
in our Nation's history. I remember a legal scholar saying that the 
Congress cannot legitimately hold any hearings that do not have a clear 
and obvious legislative intent. Therefore, we could say that since we 
do not know what legislation we might pass with respect to the 
questions of Whitewater, we cannot hold hearings until a legislative 
intent can be established. I would be happy to live by that rule. I 
think maybe the Congress would be better off if we lived by that rule. 
But we have gone over that line long since and, by precedent, we have 
established that that rule, however clearly articulated at one point, 
no longer holds, and you cannot go back to it.

  The majority leader is being rumored as the next commissioner of 
baseball. So let me draw an analogy out of the world of baseball that 
illustrates where we are.
  There are some who have changed the rules of baseball by creating the 
designated hitter. There are others who say that destroys the purity of 
the game and we should not play the game that way. And there is an 
endless debate going on.
  Assume for the moment that I am one of those who is opposed to the 
designated hitter. But if I were the manager of a team that played in 
the American League, I would use it nonetheless. I would play by the 
rule even though I might think the game would be better off otherwise.
  So what is the rule? The rule is that anything a President does that 
indicates illegality is fair game for a congressional hearing. That has 
been established again and again. It was not established by the 
Republican Party. It was established by the Democratic Party when they 
had control of this body and were facing a Republican President.
  As I say, the majority leader almost persuades me but not quite, 
because I see that what he is trying to do is undo the impact of 
procedure and practice that he and his party established. They are 
trying to say now that the other side seems to have a designated hitter 
that can knock the ball out of the park we want to go back to the game 
that says the pitcher must bat.
  Do I believe there are serious things about Whitewater that could 
damage the President? Of course, I do, or I would not be standing here 
talking about it. Is that a partisan statement? Of course, it is. I am 
a member of the Republican Party. The President is a member of another 
party. Let us not pretend. I am perfectly willing to say it is a 
legitimate partisan issue and I am perfectly willing to live with the 
results because if the results are that the President has done nothing 
wrong, the Republicans, as Doonesbury suggests, will look very bad at 
the end of the hearings. That is the risk I am willing to take. That is 
the risk my fellow partisans are willing to take.
  Let us play by the rules that have been established. Let us go ahead 
with the practice that has been laid down. And let us let the game 
begin and play itself out.
  I submit, Mr. President, there are two basic questions in the whole 
Whitewater circumstance.
  Question number one, putting it altogether, all of the talk about Mr. 
Lasater, Mr. Dougal, Mr. Hubbell, the commodity trades, and Mr. Bone, 
and all of the rest that goes on it comes down to one single question, 
and that question is this: Was the governorship of Arkansas for sale 
during the period of time that Bill Clinton held it? All of these other 
questions are subsidiary to that one. To me that is a serious question. 
But some say it is an old question. It applies to his term as Governor 
not as President and, therefore, it is inappropriate for the Congress 
to be examining it.
  So we come to the second question: Assuming that there was some 
embarrassment over the asking of the first question, was the power of 
the White House used to cover up or misdirect investigation into the 
first question since the President has been in office? And, if so, was 
the White House power used in a way that was merely inappropriate or 
illegal? That is the second legitimate question.
  In my view that is how this thing will all shake down. Was the 
governorship of Arkansas for sale when Bill Clinton held it and has the 
Clinton White House acted improperly or illegally in an effort to keep 
people from finding out the answer to that first question? That is the 
whole nub of what we are dealing with.
  I believe it is serious enough to qualify under the practice that has 
been established for the way Congress deals with Presidents, 
established by the Congress while it was held by the Democrats. That is 
the designated hitter rule that they have given us.
  We now have a designated hitter that we want to bring to the plate, 
and all that we are asking is that he be allowed to swing under the 
same rules that the previous designated hitters have swung.
  When I have raised this with some of my fellow citizens I have had 
some smile and say no, the governorship was not for sale; it was just 
for rent.
  Well, I think that is the same issue, and I think there is enough to 
it and enough people are talking about it that it deserves to be 
settled.
  The majority leader says nobody ever talked to him about it. I can 
understand that. I am not sure I would talk to him about it either. But 
the American people are still talking about it. It is there under the 
surface. And according to one columnist the whole issue of Presidential 
probity is costing the President 15 to 20 points in popularity. His 
programs seem to be popular. He seems to be accepted as a genuine 
person trying hard to do his job. I accept him as a genuine person 
trying hard to do his job. I do not want to demonize the President.
  But all of the questions about his character which keep coming on 
even after Whitewater as a name disappears from the stories, the 
Newsweek article on the politics of promiscuity, the New Yorker article 
to talk about Clinton's ability to be trusted, all of these things are 
manifestations of the fact that the Whitewater shark, if I can create a 
metaphor, is still lurking there beneath the water even though its fin 
does not surface all that often.
  It is time that we get on with it, that we get on it under the terms 
that have been laid down by past practice and that we take the risk of 
finding out whether the governorship of Arkansas was for sale or not, 
whether the Republicans have made fools of themselves by pursuing this, 
or whether in fact there is something that could indeed be brought 
before a court of law.
  I pursue this with my eyes wide open to the consequences, and I hope 
the rest of the Senate will join in doing the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
compliment my colleague from Utah for his remarks and the cogency of 
them. They are rather poignant, but they get to the point. People have 
a right to know.
  Indeed, I repeat back to a book which was maybe not well read --I am 
certain that its authors would have wished that they sold more copies--
``Men of Zeal,'' authored by Senator Cohen and Senator Mitchell in 
which they speak to the importance of getting to the facts. That is 
what distinguishes us from other countries. We do have a system of 
checks and balances. It works when we have the courage to press 
forward.
  I think that I would detract by saying more because again my 
colleague from Utah put it right where it was. It is not easy to go 
forward under these circumstances when there are those who come around 
and bash and you become the subject of attacks by saying let us do what 
we should be doing, but I understand that. I have accepted that. That 
is part of the role, and that is part of the give and take of the 
process.
  That is part of the responsibility of a responsible media as well. 
They have a right to be critical. They have a right to make their 
observations. But I still have a duty to go forward.
  I want to at this time again commend my distinguished colleague from 
Utah for his, I think, very poignant and very well-directed comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York for 
his kind words and join with my other colleagues in expressing our 
gratitude to him for the leadership he has exercised on this issue 
within the Banking Committee.
  In my opinion, the media caricature that has been made of the Senator 
from New York is inaccurate. Yes, he can be flamboyant. Yes, he can 
raise his voice. Yes, he is good copy, as they say in the newspaper. 
And I am sure he acts as something of a lightning rod because of that 
personal style. But behind that style, the Senator from New York has 
demonstrated a responsible and proper method of pursuing this within 
the Banking Committee, and I am happy to support him as a member of the 
minority of that committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistance legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I understand that we are in morning 
business now, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

                          ____________________