[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 79 (Tuesday, June 21, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


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

 
 AUTHORIZING OVERSIGHT HEARINGS BY THE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, 
                           AND URBAN AFFAIRS

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the resolution.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, a newspaper not known for its agreement with 
Republicans ran an editorial on June 17, 1994 calling for full and open 
hearings on the Whitewater affair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent that the editorial from the New York Times, entitled ``Running 
for Cover on Whitewater,'' be entered into the Record after my remarks.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LOTT. The Times' editorial does not start with mincing words: The 
first sentence of the editorial reads, ``Senate Democrats are rushing 
toward a partisan cover-up of the Whitewater affair.'' This is strong, 
but true language. It is the language that many Senators have used on 
this floor over the past few weeks. It is language that tells of a deep 
frustration over the hesitation of the Senate to take on its full 
constitutional authority and responsibility.
  The Times' editorial goes on to talk about the narrowly circumscribed 
hearings that our Democrat colleagues have been pushing, hearings that 
would look at only three questions about actions taken after Mr. 
Clinton became President. The hearing our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle have been pushing, says the New York Times, ``excludes far 
more important questions about what happened in Arkansas before he [Mr. 
Clinton] and Mrs. Clinton reached the White House.''
  These far more important questions are the exact ones that the 
Democrats want to avoid.
  Before I go on, I want to stress that the newspaper calling this 
charade over hearings a ``cover-up'' could not be called Republican. 
Many Republicans and conservatives have been criticized by this 
newspaper's editorials. My Democrat colleagues can't say that this 
newspaper is biased against their point of view. The New York Times is 
the premiere liberal newspaper.
  With even the Times coming out for full hearings, I think this shows 
that both Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives want to 
get these Whitewater issues behind us, so we can go on with solving the 
Nation's problems.
  Some of our Democrat colleagues think otherwise. Some might think 
that holding back on hearings might serve the President well. Well, a 
coverup does not make these issues go away. The President is ill-served 
by these unanswered questions. The Nation needs to know and wants to 
know the answers.
  The so-called hearings our Democrat colleagues have voted for would 
focus on only three issues: the U.S. Park Police's handling of the 
Vince Foster suicide; the way in which the White House handled Mr. 
Foster's Whitewater files; and whether the White House brought pressure 
to bear on Treasury officials concerning Madison Guaranty.
  These issues are important, and should be looked at by the Senate 
Banking Committee.
  We on this side of the aisle, though, I have been pushing to address 
other issues, which are within the purview of the Senate. Last week, 
every time we tried to pass an amendment requiring the Senate to look 
at these other issues, our Democrat colleagues who would shoot 
our amendment down. It's an ostrich mentality that has been shown: 
``No, we don't want the American people to know about that.''

  What are these other issues? I will quote the New York Times: These 
issues have to do with ``dealings that have raised suspicions that the 
Clintons may have profited from favors dispensed by people who had 
something to gain from them.'' The Clintons' dealings with Madison, the 
Whitewater land deal, and Mrs. Clinton's magical commodities trading 
come to mind as issues that the Senate should address. The commodities 
trading isn't even being looked at by the special counsel--it needs to 
be looked at by somebody. Why not the Senate?
  The answer from those who oppose open hearings doesn't hold water. 
The opponents of real hearings use fig leaves to cover up a big 
abdication of Senate responsibility.
  One fig leaf is that Senate hearings might disrupt the special 
counsel's investigation. This is false. There have been many 
congressional hearings in the past that have gone on while prosecutors 
have investigated, as the New York Times pointed out. What has changed 
now?
  Mr. Fiske has had a head start in his investigation. We have been 
patient. We have let Mr. Fiske learn the essentials of the case. Now, 
it's our turn, and our duty.
  It is not the Republicans who are playing raw partisan politics. It 
is not us who are putting party before duty. Sure, there are politics 
involved. But the goal is to get to the truth. We don't know if the 
truth will hurt or help the President. We do know that this coverup has 
hurt.
  The American people need to know. The faith in the institution of the 
Presidency needs to be restored. We need hearings not just for the 
Senate, but for the President, and the people who elected him.
  Despite the amendments that have been passed to stop full hearings, 
we on this side will continue to press for more information. If the 
Senate doesn't take responsibility for hearings, then we will take the 
case to the people.
  When you get down to it, you can't blame the people for the low 
opinion it has of this one-party Government. They feel like their 
voices are not being heard. Sure, another fig leaf thrown around is 
that the American people don't care about Whitewater. Maybe so--though 
I disagree. Whitewater is not the World Cup Soccer championships--we 
wouldn't put on hearings for entertainment. It's our responsibility to 
have hearings whether people are interested in them or not.
  I think the American people, even if they don't know the specifics of 
Whitewater--though hearings would solve this--feel that something wrong 
might have happened. This feeling is part of the general unease that 
has shown up in low opinion polls for this administration.
  I look forward to the resolution of the impasse we have reached in 
this Chamber. I also look forward to the end of this Whitewater mess, 
if only because of the corrosive uncertainty that day to day hurts Mr. 
Clinton's Presidency.
  Whatever we do, we have to do it quickly. Lollygagging until the end 
of summer, after the elections or next year will only prolong the agony 
of this administration.

                               Exhibit 1

                       [From the New York Times]

                    Running for Cover on Whitewater

       Senate Democrats are rushing toward a partisan cover-up of 
     the Whitewater affair. They have voted to hold narrowly 
     circumscribed hearings in the Senate Banking Committee, which 
     they dominate. They are therefore likely to prolong the agony 
     of the President they hope to protect.
       By a 56-to-43 vote, the Senate decided to limit hearings 
     next month to three elements of the case. One is the U.S. 
     Park Police's investigation into the death of Vincent Foster 
     Jr., the Deputy White House Counsel. Two, the way in which 
     members of the White House staff disposed of Mr. Foster's 
     Whitewater files. Three, whether White House officials tried 
     to manipulate Treasury Department investigations into Madison 
     Guaranty Savings and Loan.
       This agenda focuses only on White House behavior after Bill 
     Clinton became President and excludes far more important 
     questions about what happened in Arkansas before he and Mrs. 
     Clinton reached the White House.
       To recapitulate: Did James McDougal, a Clinton crony who 
     headed Madison, receive favorable treatment from a bank 
     regulator appointed by then-Gov. Bill Clinton? Were Madison 
     funds used to pay off Mr. Clinton's 1984 campaign debt? Were 
     funds in Madison accounts diverted to the Whitewater 
     Development Company? How much did the Clintons pay for their 
     half-share of Whitewater? Did they receive financial benefits 
     that they should have reported as taxable income?
       In short, the Democrats have chosen to ignore precisely 
     those dealings that have raised suspicions that the Clintons 
     may have profited from favors dispensed by people who had 
     something to gain from them. They have also shown no interest 
     in Mrs. Clinton's commodities trading, or the possibility 
     that an artful broker may have given her favorable treatment. 
     The special counsel investigating Whitewater, Robert Fiske, 
     has likewise shown little interest in this issue.
       The Democrats say their timid agenda results from a desire 
     not to undermine Mr. Fiske's inquiries. They also promise to 
     get to the Arkansas questions next year--safely after the 
     midterm elections. In March, this page argued against a 
     partisan circus and agreed that hearings should be delayed 
     until Mr. Fiske got his feet on the ground. But we also said 
     the delay should be measured in weeks, not months. Mr. Fiske 
     has now had time to learn the basics of the case, both in 
     Washington and Arkansas; it is hard to see how a broad 
     Congressional inquiry could seriously hinder him. It might 
     even help; past Congressional hearings have made the 
     prosecutor's case even stronger.
       We also noted that Mr. Fiske could not expect Congress to 
     abdicate its oversight responsibilities. The banking 
     committees have a legitimate interest in the behavior of 
     Federal bank regulators and the Arkansas bank regulators in 
     regard to Madison and its dubious lending practices.
       House Democrats are expected to follow the Senate's narrow 
     path. This path does not serve the public or the President. 
     It leaves unanswered questions that voters deserve to have 
     answered. It prolongs the uncertainty that has damaged this 
     Presidency from day one of the Whitewater affair and hands 
     the G.O.P. a new--and legitimate--cover-up issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 1818, offered by Senator D'Amato for Senator 
Dole.
  Mr. CRAIG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] is 
absence due to illness in the family
  I also announce that the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] is absent 
attending a funeral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 153 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                                NAYS--54

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Dodd
     Reid
       
  So the amendment (No. 1818) was rejected.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Vote on Senate Resolution 229

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on adoption of Senate Resolution 229.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] is 
absent due to illness in the family.
  I also announce that the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] is absent 
attending a funeral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 154 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--44

     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Dodd
     Reid
       
  So the resolution (S. Res. 229) was agreed to.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________