[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 102 (Friday, July 29, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
      UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ON THE CLINTON LEGAL DEFENSE TRUST FUND

                                 ______


                           HON. DEBORAH PRYCE

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, July 29, 1994

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as the hearings into the Whitewater 
affair continue, I would like to commend the attention of my colleagues 
to the following article that recently appeared in the July 27, 1994 
edition of the Washington Times.

           Questions Henry Gonzalez Doesn't Want You to Hear

       Editor's note: At the House Banking Committee's hearing on 
     Whitewater Tuesday, Republican Rep. Deborah Pryce sought to 
     ask White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler, the lead-off witness, a 
     series of questions about the Clintons' legal expense fund 
     and other such funds. The witness answered some questions, 
     but repeatedly volunteered his view that the issue was beyond 
     the scope of the committee's hearings. Banking Committee 
     Chairman Henry Gonzalez ultimately intervened, derailing Rep. 
     Pryce's questions.
       Rep. Pryce then sought, as a matter of routine courtesy to 
     members, to insert her questions into the record: ``To 
     preserve the record, I ask unanimous consent to just put my 
     line of questioning in the record, and then I would be 
     prepared to move on,'' she said.
       Chairman Gonzalez responded, again routinely, ``There is no 
     objection,'' But there was an objection.
       Rep. Maxine Waters, Democrat of California, interjected: 
     ``Mr. Chairman? Inquiry. Now, as I understand it, you set out 
     the scope of the hearing, and everybody has been adhering to 
     that. You made it very clear that we are dealing with the 
     contacts that are under question. Whenever anyone has 
     stepped outside of that, you have ruled them out of order. 
     And while you allow the gentlelady to continue without 
     objection, I think it stretches it a bit to ask that they 
     be placed in the record, and I would object, Mr. 
     Chairman.''
       So it is that Rep. Pryce's questions for Mr. Cutler will 
     not appear in the Whitewater hearing record. (It will be 
     interesting to see what happens the next time Rep. Waters 
     asks unanimous consent for something routine, such as to 
     revise and extend her remarks on the floor.) In the interest, 
     however, of a more complete record, here are the questions 
     Rep. Pryce sought to put into the record:


                  questions on the legal defense fund

       (1) Have any of the White House officials who will be 
     testifying established a legal defense fund, the same or 
     similar to the president and first lady's? And, would such 
     funds be legal?
       (2) What, in your mind, distinguishes the first family?
       (3) Has the Justice Department been asked to review the 
     legality of the establishment of the trust fund? Is there a 
     Justice Department written opinion supporting the legality of 
     the trust fund? Is there an Office of Government Ethics 
     written opinion?
       (4) It is clear from the Trust Document that the president, 
     Mrs. Clinton and their chosen trustees and agents will 
     actively solicit contributions to the fund. Does this written 
     authorization violate statutory and regulatory bans on the 
     solicitation of such gifts, specifically 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7353, 
     5 CFR Sec. 2635.204(j) and 3 CFR Sec. 100.735-14?
       (5) (As rebuttal to exception) If read so broadly as to 
     carve out an exemption from 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7353 for 
     president's trust fund, would the exception (5 CFR 
     2635.204(j)) be ``manifestly contrary to the statute'' under 
     the rule of Chevron U.S.A. vs. Natural Resources Defense 
     Council, 4678 U.S. 837,844 (1984)?
       (6) Do the regulations governing the supplementation of 
     salary and the receipt of gifts by employees of the Executive 
     Office of the President (specifically, 3 CFR Sec. 100.735-13 
     and Sec. 100.735-14) prohibit the creation of the trust fund 
     as established?
       (7) If, while still in office, the president or his wife 
     were to have access to funds from the trust left over after 
     payment of all legal fees, would this constitute an illegal 
     augmentation of salary?
       (8) Why does the trust document abide by the statutory ban 
     on acceptance of gifts from inferior government employees, in 
     5 U.S.C. Sec. 7351, but ignore the more general gift 
     prohibition in 5 U.S.C. 7353?
       (9) The Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of 
     Justice issued an opinion during the Carter administration on 
     Aug. 27, 1980, stating that White House employees should not 
     accept free or discounted legal services. What is the ethical 
     distinction between receiving free services from an attorney 
     and receiving gifts of money from interested persons from 
     which to pay an attorney?
       (10) Can other executive branch employees set up legal 
     defense trust funds? Can they have access to the remainder of 
     the funds once all legal bills have been paid?
       (11) According to the trust document, the president and his 
     wife can remove the trustees ``at any time.'' Does this give 
     them day-to-day, operational control over the trust?
       (12) What legal assurances are there that the president and 
     his wife will return, or donate to charity, whatever funds 
     remain after all relevant funds are paid?
       (13) Are these issues within the scope of Mr. Fiske's 
     investigation? Would you support, including forwarding a 
     written request to the special division, placing these issues 
     within the jurisdiction of the independent counsel 
     investigating the Whitewater/Madison Guaranty matter if such 
     a counsel is appointed?
       (14) Does the trust fund expose donors to any criminal 
     liability under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 209, which criminalizes giving 
     and receiving salary supplementations? Have the trustees been 
     advised of any potential criminal liability in regard to 
     this, or any other, federal criminal statute?
       (15) Does the way in which the trust fund is set up 
     implicate criminal statutes 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201 (the general 
     anti-bribery statute) and 18 U.S.C. 208 (the criminal 
     conflict of interest statute)?
       (16)Are lobbyists permitted to contribute to this legal 
     defense fund?
       (17) Do contributions to the trust subject the Clintons to 
     any additional tax liability? Has the Treasury Department or 
     the Internal Revenue Service issued a written opinion in 
     response to that question? If not, why not? If so, please 
     provide me with a copy.
       (18) If the Clintons are not subject to any additional tax 
     liability as a result of their acceptance of such 
     contributions to a legal defense trust, does the same tax 
     treatment apply to other Americans who might similarly 
     establish legal defense trusts to help pay their legal bills? 
     If not, why not?

                          ____________________