[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 26 (Thursday, February 29, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1621-H1622]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 WE MUST NOT WASTE MONEY ON WHITEWATER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the first thing that I would 
like to acknowledge is my full and complete appreciation for the 
oversight responsibilities of this body. Likewise, I think those of us 
in public life, those who have offered themselves for elected office 
and for appointed office, do owe a special obligation of responsibility 
to the American public, to this Nation.
  Might I also add, however, that those who offer themselves, 
particularly Presidential appointees and Governmental officials, have 
always exhibited to the best of their ability, I believe, the highest 
degree of integrity. We realize that there may be exceptions and that 
we should not falter from the responsibility to ensure that the 
American people have the truth. But might I just for a moment reflect 
upon the ongoing proceedings in the other body, the Whitewater 
hearings.
  The hearings have to date in the Congress cost $900,000. This is 
separate and apart from the moneys being spent by the Independent 
Counsel. I might ask the American people this question: Oversight is 
one thing; but abuse is something else. We have determined today that 
the FDIC has decided not to sue the Rose law firm on issues dealing 
with Whitewater. We have already had previous reports by law firms that 
have not been dominated by any particular politics that have found no 
fault on behalf of the Clintons. Yet we now know there is an ongoing 
discussion about extending the debate and the proceedings of 
Whitewater, extending it and spending more money.
  What the American people should be asking is what are the ultimate 
results? Will there be a criminal indictment? Is there a need to get 
more facts, or have we totally exhausted all facts that we could 
possibly find?
  What we now see is a sense of redundancy, calling the same witnesses 
over again and, in actuality, trying to create perjury where none 
exists.
  The reason why I say this, Mr. Speaker, is that we have some 
troubling times. First of all, we have no budget. We are funding 
education for our children at 75 percent of the need. In my State in 
Texas, Harris county, the area that I represent, stands to lose some 
$13.8 million in education funds because this body, this entire 
Congress, has no budget.
  We are losing on Goals 2000 moneys. We are losing on title I moneys 
for disadvantaged children. We have already determined that public 
education does work. It has educated many in this body. I have had the 
privilege of being educated by the public schools, and I would say 
there are many teachers whose shoulders I stand upon that have allowed 
me to enter into the door of opportunity.
  Yet we spend $900,000 on Whitewater, and they are asking that we 
spend some more, with no resolution, with no conclusion, and no 
solutions.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would say it is time for this body to get down to 
business. We must deal with education. We must deal with the Justice 
Department funding that has the Cops on the Beat Program, another 
program that has helped citizens in Harris County, the sheriff's 
department, the police department, cops on the beat. That program is 
not funded and is threatened. The DARE Program, the Drug and School 
Safety Program, all of these are trying to meet the test of legitimacy 
in serving the American public. Yet, may I say it again, we want to 
spend another $900,000 on Whitewater.
  We now face, I think, a very interesting question; many of us have 
been discussing it for a long time. That is the issue of job creation 
in this Nation. We hear it in the very disjangled chords of the 
political process. In fact, many have said to me we are frustrated by 
this ongoing debate that we see in the Republican primary.
  I think it is good that these issues are on the table. But let me say 
to the American public, we have been discussing, those of us who have 
been concerned about job development, for a long time, the issue of 
raising the standard of living for citizens in America. I do not think 
we can do that without raising the minimum wage. I know that is a 
difficult question for small- and medium-sized companies. But I do 
believe if we look at the small fraction of the amount of raising the 
minimum wage and the number of years where we have not raised it, we 
will find that Americans will be fair and will realize that giving 
Americans a fair standard of living is in reality helping America move 
forward.
  Then the job creation, does it come from total protectionist 
policies? No, it does not. Does it come from a fair assessment of the 
fair trade? Yes, it does. Does it come from an internal analysis of 
corporate America in dealing with the investment process, that it is 
not just the dividend, but it is in fact job creation. We must work 
with corporate America to develop jobs with America, we must not waste 
money on Whitewater.

[[Page H1622]]


                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair must caution all Members that 
although factual descriptions of Senate action is permitted, debate may 
not include characterization of Senate actions or suggest courses of 
Senate action.

                          ____________________