[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 45 (Friday, March 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3766-S3767]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     CONCERNING PRESIDENTIAL ETHICS

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, President Clinton was asked, at his most 
recent news conference, how he could explain the ethical controversies 
surrounding his administration--and these are the words of an inquiring 
press--``* * * after [he] came into office promising the most ethical 
administration in history.''
  I wanted to take this opportunity to discuss how the President 
reacted to that inquiry at his news conference.
  First, he responded to allegations about Roger Altman's ethical 
troubles. President Clinton stated that:

       Roger Altman resigned even though he had violated no law 
     and no rule of ethics.

  There are two problems with that statement. First, Roger Altman 
resigned because bipartisan members of the Senate Banking Committee 
found that he misled Congress in sworn testimony. I hope that President 
Clinton did not mean to suggest that misleading Congress in sworn 
testimony is ethical.
  And, second, Altman did not really resign. Several months later, he 
was still performing functions for the Treasury Department.
  That is not the commitment to ethics that the President promised the 
American people.
  President Clinton also mentioned former Agriculture Secretary Mike 
Espy. The President said that Secretary Espy's actions involved ``* * * 
a few thousand dollars, all of which he has reimbursed.''
  I think Secretary Espy made a number of significant contributions as 
Agriculture Secretary. But, once again, I have to take issue with the 
President. The purity of the Nation's food supply is vital. Laws have 
been on the books for decades to prevent the Agriculture Department 
personnel from taking any payment that might influence their decisions 
regarding food product safety. And ethics is about the adherence to 
rules. The fact that amounts involved might have been petty may relate 
to appropriate punishments. But it does not relate to or excuse an 
ethics violation, if one occurred.
  The President's comments that Mr. Espy is the only Cabinet Secretary 
to resign based on ethics challenges to actions taken while in office 
is technically true. But this is only because Commerce Secretary Ron 
Brown has not resigned. It is simply not true, as the President has 
repeatedly said, that the charges relating to Secretary Brown concern 
only his conduct prior to taking office. Significant ethical issues 
arise from the manner in which he reported various financial 
transactions on his ethics disclosure forms once he assumed office. 
Various conflicts of interest are alleged to have arisen after he 
became Secretary of Commerce as well.
  I am also concerned that the President seems to think that somehow it 
is a matter of less concern that a person in his administration is 
accused of ethical conduct prior to joining his administration than 
afterward. What does that say about the vetting process that was 
followed?
  Does the President suggest that the ethics of a person he chose for 
his administration matter only with respect to actions they took while 
in office? Remember, Vice President Agnew resigned because of actions 
he took prior to assuming that office.
  I think that it is not asking too much of the President, who promised 
the toughest ethical standards in history, that his appointees be 
ethical in their current positions and that they have records of acting 
ethically.
  However, the President said that we are ``creating a climate here in 
which a lot of people will be reluctant to serve.'' Let me make crystal 
clear that, in fact, we are trying to create a climate in which people 
who are not ethical, including a number this President has appointed, 
are very reluctant to serve.
  President Clinton also said that under the independent counsel law 
investigations cannot be controlled. The President said that if a 
certain number of Members of Congress ask for an independent counsel, 
then the prospect of a counsel is triggered. Mr. President, I am 
pleased to have supported the independent counsel law over many years 
in times of both Republican and Democrat Presidents. President Clinton 
made reauthorization of that statute a priority, so he should not 
complain about that law.
  But we should be clear about the terms of the statute. A particular 
number of Senators cannot demand that an independent counsel be 
appointed. What Members of Congress can do is force the Attorney 
General to conduct an investigation and to make a decision. But the 
decision to ask for an independent counsel is the Attorney General's 
alone.
  For instance, a majority of Republicans on the House Judiciary 
Committee wrote the Attorney General to ask that an independent counsel 
be appointed to prosecute Ira Magaziner on the contempt charges arising 
from the health care task force litigation that the Justice Department 
defended. Attorney General Reno conducted an investigation, but she 
decided not to ask for the appointment of an independent counsel. In 
the other instances in which an independent counsel was appointed, it 
was the President's own Attorney General who sought the appointment 
because the circumstances warranted it. Members of Congress cannot 
force an appointment.
  President Clinton also said that with respect to his administration, 
``You would be hard pressed to cite examples that constitute abuse of 
authority.'' In fact, it is very easy in regard to the health care 
reform task force. A violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act by 
the health care task force is one example. Failure to immediately put 
assets in a blind trust, as all other recent Presidents did, while 
those assets included a fund that shorted health care stocks, is a 
second example. A third example is Travelgate; 
[[Page S3767]] that was an abuse of authority. And, of course, there 
are many others.
  Mr. President, the Olympic games include the high jump. The gold 
medal is awarded to the person who jumps the highest, not to the person 
who sets the bar the highest but fails to scale it. President Clinton 
may honestly believe that his administration has set the ethics bar the 
highest of any of his predecessors. But that is irrelevant because so 
many people he has appointed are not clearing that bar.
  With ethics, it is not the standard that is set but the standard that 
is met that counts. The fact is that this administration is not 
practicing what it preaches in the area of ethics. And that fact is 
unfortunately reducing public trust in Government. When President 
Clinton is questioned about the ethical performances of his 
administration, as he was in a news conference, he should make amends, 
not excuses. He should make sure that his appointees live up to the 
standards he believes are so high. Until then, the questions will 
continue.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi.

                          ____________________