[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 26 (Thursday, February 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1427-S1429]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WHITEWATER
Mr. LOTT. First, Mr. President, I want to make note of what is being
done here. The distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee has
asked for a very fair unanimous consent that the Senate bring up the
resolution extending the Special Committee To Investigate Whitewater
Development Corp., and that it would be presented in a most fair
manner, 2 hours of debate, equally divided, with an amendment in order
by the distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, or his
designee, and an hour of debate on that, and we would then proceed to
vote.
That unanimous-consent request has been objected to. It seemed like a
fair way to proceed to me. It is normal business. You bring up a
resolution, you have a very fair procedure where the other side can
offer an alternative and we can have a vote on that and then proceed to
vote on the resolution as it is presented. That has been objected to
now about four times. We are just trying to find a way to move this to
a conclusion.
This Whitewater committee has a job to do. The American people
understand that. They want the job to be done. But that job is not
complete. It would have been nice if it could have been wrapped up a
month ago, or today. But the work is not completed. It is not completed
partially because there has been this slow process. They talk about a
perception of politics; how about a perception of coverup?
I can understand how there are documents can be misplaced at one time
and then turn up, like the billing records did in the private residence
at the White House. That is one example. And then there are these
documents that Mr. Gearan found. Then there are the documents which Mr.
Ickes found. I think that came out just in the last week or so.
Every time it looks like all the documents that can be found have
been found--and I am not on the committee; I am just observing it as a
normal Member of the Senate would--and when the Senate seems like it is
getting to the point where we could begin to move to some conclusions,
another raft of papers just appears out of thin air.
I want to commend the chairman of the Banking Committee. He has been
diligent. He has been very calm in the way he has handled this
committee. He has been very fair. Yet he is, on the one hand,
criticized because they have not had hearings every day and on the
other criticized because of all that has been done and all the
documentation that has been accumulated. I just think he is entitled to
some credit for the very calm and methodical job that has been done.
Those who want to say, well, it is politics, those who are opposed to
extending this hearing in the way that it should be extended, certainly
you would think that they would have had the Washington Post or New
York Times and other media in their corner. But that is not so.
The New York Times, in fact, on the 28th of February, said that
Senator D'Amato has in a non-partisan way made a very strong point
about the need to continue the Whitewater committee. I want to read an
excerpt from the New York Times. The editorial supports an indefinite
extension of the committee and the duty of the Senate to pursue this
matter in a fair way.
The New York Times editorial reads thusly:
The Senate's duty cannot be canceled or truncated because
of the campaign calendar. Any certain date for terminating
the hearings would encourage even more delay in producing
subpoenaed documents than the committee has endured since it
started last July. The committee has been forced to await
such events as the criminal trial next week of James
McDougal, a Clinton business partner in the failed Whitewater
land venture.
No arguments about politics on either side can outweigh the
fact that the White House has yet to reveal the full facts
about the land venture, the Clintons' relationship to Mr.
McDougal's banking activities, Hillary Rodham Clinton's work
as a lawyer on Whitewater matters and the mysterious
movements of documents between the Rose Law Firm, various
basements and closets and the Executive Mansion. The
committee, politics notwithstanding, has earned an indefinite
extension. A Democratic filibuster against it would be silly
stonewalling.
The New York Times is not exactly a Republican National Committee
publication. The New York Times is not the only newspaper which has
expressed similar views. There have been similar articles in the
Washington Post.
So, I am a little surprised at what I have heard here today: that
we're dragging the investigation out; that Whitewater is only about
empty allegations and politics. There are also these complaints that
there is nothing really to Whitewater. There is no ``there, there,'' so
to speak.
I do not know all the details. But I do know this, that in connection
with this matter, there have been numerous guilty pleas and
indictments. David Hale pleaded guilty on March 22 to two felony
violations. Charles Matthews pleaded guilty on June 23, 1994, to two
misdemeanor violations. Eugene Fitzhugh pleaded guilty on June 24,
1994. Robert Palmer pleaded guilty on December 5, 1994. Webster Hubbell
pleaded guilty on December 6, 1994. Christopher Wade pleaded guilty on
March 21, 1995. Neal Ainley pleaded guilty on May 2. Stephen Smith
pleaded guilty on June 8. Larry Kuca pleaded guilty on July 13, 1995.
We have indictments on numerous felony counts of Mr. McDougal. Eleven
felony indictments were handed down against Governor Tucker. You know,
I do not think we can lightly dismiss all of these things.
I acknowledge that these are separate proceedings that are being
carried forth by the independent counsel's office. But as a matter of
fact, the Senate has an even higher responsibility.
[[Page S1428]]
We are not just looking at legal matters; we are looking at broader
questions of misconduct, how Federal agencies or departments may have
been used, how certain Federal funds may or may not have wound up in
campaigns.
So even aside from all this, if you can just dismiss all this, you
have to ask yourself, should not the committee be looking at that and a
lot of other matters that are surrounding this Whitewater affair? So,
clearly, the committee should have an extension of its time well beyond
February 29.
Mr. SARBANES. Would the Senator yield?
Mr. LOTT. I will yield, but I want to take note that I listened a
long time to the Senator's statements without any interruption. If the
Senator would like to ask a question or make a point.
Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator would prefer that I wait, I will be
happy to.
Mr. LOTT. Beg pardon?
Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator would prefer that I wait, I will be
happy to do that.
Mr. LOTT. Would the Senator? Then I would be glad to respond to
questions. And I would like to address some to the distinguished
chairman of the committee because most Senators do not know the answers
to some of these questions that are being asked out here today. I would
like to ask those of you who have been involved to respond to those.
Certainly, the Whitewater committee should be extended beyond
February 29. Even my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
acknowledge this. But you want to put this arbitrary cutoff on it.
Regardless of what happens in the trial that is beginning next week,
you want to say by a date certain we are going to stop it no matter
what happens in that trial.
I know some of the defendants maybe will be found innocent, or maybe
they will be found guilty. Maybe there will be appeals. But we will
find out. There are witnesses, I presume, associated with that trial
that this committee has not been able to have testify.
How can we say to the committee, ``Complete your work,'' when they
may not have questioned some of the most critical witnesses? Again, I
do not know what the end result will be. I do not know how long it will
take. But I am uncomfortable, in view of the dribbling out of
information, with saying you have to just stop it at some date certain,
like May 3. The minute you say this is the cutoff date, the way things
have transpired, what your guarantee is that there will be more
withholding of information until that date arrives.
I have some sympathy for the White House, in a way, because I am
amazed at how they handled this thing. They certainly have not helped
this committee finish its work, even though the Whitewater affair is a
blight on the administration. Surely, it would be better if we could
get it all out in the open and reach a conclusion. I am sure that the
administration, in many respects, is horrified at how some of this is
being handled.
Let me say this, too. I served in the House for 16 years. I have been
in the Senate 7 years. I was on the Judiciary Committee during the
Watergate hearings. Oh, yes, is it not amazing how the worm sort of
turns over the years, depending on which side of the aisle you are on.
I remember Watergate, and I watched the Iran-Contra hearings. I watched
the October surprise. I never figured out what the surprise was. I got
the answer. There was not any. And now some of those who were saying we
must get to the bottom of this, that we cannot have a coverup, that we
have to go forward with this no matter what the cost, now they are
saying, ``Geez, we need to cut this thing off; it costs too much, it
looks political because of an election year.'' If we had gotten all the
evidence, if the special independent counsel had completed its work,
maybe we could have completed it.
I want to talk about the dollars, too. Not only has the chairman done
a very calm, reasonable, fair job, he has also been frugal. This
committee has only spent $950,000 in the 104th Congress, as I
understand it, through February 29. I understand there might have been
an amount that was actually done in the previous Congress, bringing the
total to like $1.3 million, I believe, and that is what the Democratic
leader had said earlier.
Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield?
Mr. LOTT. I will yield on that point.
Mr. SARBANES. This committee spent what was available to them. That
was the $950,000.
Mr. LOTT. That is going to relate to what I am fixing to say. You
talk about the cost. That is a very small amount of money in doing its
job, especially when you compare it to what these other committees
spent. For instance, the select committees on Iran-Contra spent well
over $3 million, and in 1996 dollars, it would probably be $4.5 million
on that investigation, according to the Congressional Research Service.
The October surprise investigation cost up to $2.5 million, according
to the Congressional Budget Office. Chairman Hyde in the House, who
served on the investigating committee, said the total cost, including
salaries and expenses, amounted to probably as much as $4.56 million.
It may have been for a shorter period of time, but the actual costs
were greater.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the total cost of
Whitewater, including the independent counsel, at this point has been
$12,525,000.
Compare this $12.5 million to the $40 million in direct costs spent
on Iran-Contra. Some estimates place the total cost of Iran-Contra as
high as $100 million. Even the Watergate investigation, in which I
participated, is estimated to have cost $26 million.
I understand you have the cost of the independent counsels and the
entire cost of some of these other investigations, and in this case you
have the independent counsel going forward, but the committee itself
has been very reasonable in what it has spent.
What they have asked in additional funds is only $600,000. You are
talking about, based on that money, 3 months, 4 months maybe, and if
the work is completed before then, it certainly would have to be
completed within 4 months, but it could be done before then.
I want to know, when did this committee establish 96 to 3, by a vote
of the Senate last year, to become a political circus? What we are
trying to do here is find out the facts, not facts as determined by
Republicans or Democrats, but what happened in this matter. There are a
lot of questions that remain unanswered, as far as I can see.
More and more this Whitewater affair looks to me like a scheme to
fund dubious ventures illegally, perhaps with some of the tab
ultimately being picked up by the taxpayer. These are important issues,
not flights of fancy. To treat this investigation as anything less, as
partisanship or vindictiveness, is wrong.
So, Mr. President, let me just say the Whitewater investigation is
not and should not be about politics. The committee has found a
tremendous amount of information and facts that raise a lot of
questions. Some of those questions have not been answered yet, and the
committee has done its job inexpensively and prudently. The truth needs
to get out. The Congress has a job to do, no matter what happens with
the independent counsel. We need to get through the public hearings.
If there is wrongdoing, then the judiciary will get involved. The
Senate's role is limited. The job of Congress constitutionally is not
to prosecute but to reveal. It is a place not only where the people
rule, but where the people hear. Through hearings and other means, the
Senate has and can continue to reveal what really happened in
Whitewater. For the good of the Presidency and for the good of the
country, we must find out.
Surely we can find a way to come to an agreement on the necessary
funds to get this hearing done and completed in a reasonable way, but
without artificial cutoffs. We will regret that if we do it.
Mr. President, I would like to address a couple of questions to the
distinguished chairman of the committee to clear up some of these
things that some of the Members are wondering about and that I wonder
about.
Obviously, documents have been coming in fits and stops and not all
the documents that the committee subpoenaed, but I just wonder and ask
the chairman of the committee, what kind of cooperation have you
received from the White House? The White House keeps talking about the
number of
[[Page S1429]]
pages of documents. The Senator from Maryland talked about this
tremendous, voluminous amount of material that has been furnished to
the committee, but have we received full cooperation from the White
House? Have you received everything you have asked for?
I yield to the Senator.
Mr. D'AMATO. The Senator raised a very good point, because we have
heard ``50,000 pages of documents being produced in response to
requests,'' but the fact of the matter is, as Senator Mack pointed out
yesterday that it is not the sheer quantity of documents that matter,
it is the quality and relevance; for example, documents that were under
the jurisdiction of key people with the so-called Whitewater defense
team, the group that was attempting to deal with press inquiries and
other inquiries, headed by Mr. Ickes. We just received about 200 pages,
literally, last week. Incredible.
Now, we have requested that--
Mr. LOTT. You received 200 pages just last week?
Mr. D'AMATO. That is right.
Mr. LOTT. Where did those documents come from?
Mr. D'AMATO. It was indicated they were in a box, a file. He thought
he maybe turned them over to his lawyer.
Mr. LOTT. Who is he?
Mr. D'AMATO. He is Mr. Ickes, deputy chief at the White House, and in
charge of this task force dealing with this Whitewater and Whitewater-
related matters.
Let me say that the production of those documents alone have raised
very interesting questions, and I have to think that there are many
more documents--because the produced records contain information
relating to Mr. Ickes tasking assignments out to different people. You
know something, we have not gotten any of those documents or any of the
task reports from the other members of that so-called White House
defense team. But that is only one individual.
With Mark Gearan several weeks ago, former White House communications
director, the same kind of event. He claims that the documents were not
found because he put them in a box while he was packing. He was going
to head the Peace Corps, and he thought mistakenly that they had been
turned over. An inadvertence. Interesting. Because he is another member
of the defense team.
Guess what? Again, just several weeks ago, the same thing. This time
Mr. Waldman, another member of the defense team, finds documents.
Again, it relates to specifically Whitewater-related matters. No
question. I have to tell you, it does lead one to believe--even if one
were to accept that these were just accidental--these are delays that
are no fault of the committee.
What about the manner in which the White House conducted an
investigation to get the documents? Let me give you an example of what
the Treasury Department did. They sent a team of IRS agents in to comb
the files for relevant material. It is not what the White House did.
They had a haphazard handling of this, almost with the back-of-the-hand
attitude, designed--or certainly if not designed, they should have
recognized that it certainly did not comply with the spirit and intent
of what the President meant by promising full cooperation.
Last but not least is the miraculous production of the billing
records--billing records that are very essential to analyze what Mrs.
Clinton did or did not do for Madison. Where are they found? In the
personal residence of the White House. I do not know how it got there.
But I have to tell you, as our friend from North Carolina, Senator
Lauch Faircloth, points out, that is one of the most secure places in
the world. He asked, tongue in cheek, ``Did the butler bring it
there?'' Who do you think had control of the billing records of the
Rose Law Firm? Who? It was not this Senator. I do not know. Where do
you think they found them? They were found in the personal library of
the First Family. Who brought them there? How did they get there?
Our colleagues complain that we are bringing in witnesses
unnecessarily. An attorney, Austin Jennings, was brought in. Let me
tell you why we asked for that poor attorney to come in. It was because
he came up to Washington to meet with the Clintons' personal defense
lawyer. Are we supposed to talk to him by telephone? Why did the
Clinton's attorney not do that? He was writing a book--this is a great
story--and he wanted to ascertain, was Mrs. Clinton a competent lawyer.
Could you believe he flew from Little Rock up here to the White House
itself to meet with the Clintons' personal lawyer and Mrs. Clinton to
spend 20 minutes simply to say that, yes, if asked any questions, he
would say she was a competent lawyer? He did not even know who paid for
his trip. You want to talk about disingenuous. I think it is
disingenuous to ask why we asked this poor gentlemen to come here.
Incredible. Sympathy and sop? Come on. Let us level somewhat.
I have to tell you something. The fact of the matter is that Mr.
Jennings was Seth Ward's attorney. Who is Seth Ward? If my friends want
to debate this, we will bring out what the committee has been doing on
this floor. If you want to do it for 10 hours, we will do it for 10
hours. If you want to do it for 20 hours, we will do it for 20 hours,
and we will spell it out.
Seth Ward is Webb Hubbell's father-in-law, and he participated in
Castle Grande, the biggest of Madison Guaranty's sham deals--a $3.8
million loss. By the way, Mrs. Clinton, when asked by various
investigative agencies of the Government, gave indications that she did
not know about Castle Grande. She heard it referred to by a different
name. She had 15 conversations with Seth Ward. Jennings was Seth Ward's
attorney. That is why we brought him in. When an attorney says tongue
in cheek, like Mr. Jennings did--a smart fellow--says, ``I do not know
what I am doing here,'' come on, it is disingenuous to come to the
American people and to the Senate and to say some witnesses did not
even know why. Here is a smart lawyer, and he does not even know who
paid for him to come up here. I have to tell you, it raises many more
questions than it answers.
It is this kind of delay and holding back that puts us here in this
position. You can pull out the letter and all of the conversations you
want. I thought we would have this matter finished by February 29. If
we had the cooperation of witnesses, the White House, and others, we
could have wound this up. But we did not have the kind of cooperation
that the American people are entitled to.
____________________