[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 30 (Thursday, March 7, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1617-S1623]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  WHITEWATER DEVELOPMENT CORP. AND RELATED MATTERS--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion to proceed to 
Senate Resolution 227.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to consider a resolution (S. Res. 227) to 
     authorize the use of additional funds for salaries and 
     expenses of the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater 
     Development Corporation and related matters, and for other 
     purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the motion.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I believe that we have a constitutional 
obligation to get the facts as it relates to the Whitewater Committee 
and its work, which is incomplete. It is not nearly complete. It is not 
complete for a variety of reasons. The fact of the matter is that just 
this past Saturday--actually late on a Friday--this committee received 
a letter from a very prominent lawyer. That lawyer represents Bruce 
Lindsey. Bruce Lindsey is President Clinton's close friend, confidant, 
and assistant.
  For months and months and months, Mr. Lindsey and his attorney were 
aware of the fact that we were seeking all notes and all relevant 
material that he may have had in connection with Whitewater. We know 
that he was part of this Whitewater strategic team. We know that. Mr. 
Lindsey testified that he did not take notes. We were concerned and we 
had reason to believe that he did take notes.
  Mr. Lindsey's attorney sends us a letter, very interestingly, dated 
March 1. That is after the deadline for our committee's work or the 
appropriation for our committee. He sends us the notes that we had 
asked him about, which he had first denied ever having taken. There are 
two pages, all about Whitewater and various questions--like who made 
telephone calls in connection with it to Bill Kennedy, Randy Coleman, 
Hale, and other people involved in it. And then he tells us in his 
concluding sentence that he has additional documents, and he claims a 
privilege--not a privilege between himself, being Mr. Lindsey's 
lawyer--but he raises a privilege between himself and these documents 
being sent, that they are attorney-client discussions and 
communications with the President's counsel.
  Now, first, we have the White House saying they would not raise the 
issue of privilege. Second, we have no way of knowing if this 
information falls within that domain. Third, in order to keep his 
client from obviously thwarting the will of the committee and its 
subpoena, he cloaks this. Understand, if anybody can simply say that 
these are documents or information that I shared with the President's 
counsel, that would automatically thwart us from getting information. 
That is what this is about. This is a way of keeping information from 
us and not, obviously, being in a position where he is in contempt of a 
duly authorized, issued subpoena. That is what is going on. It is 
incredible.
  Now, our attorneys have written to him. Our attorneys have written 
and we have asked to see the so-called privilege log that would exist, 
and we have been denied that. We have been given no response to this. 
Here we have people who want to cut off this investigation. They want 
to cut it off. Well, I have to tell you that when we get information 
that comes in after the work of the committee, that we hoped had been 
concluded, and get information from key White House officials, I have 
to suggest that that is why it becomes

[[Page S1618]]

very difficult and dangerous to set a time certain for the conclusion 
of an investigation.
  Indeed, in the book ``Men of Zeal,'' the former Democratic leader, 
Senator George Mitchell, said exactly that. He said this about when you 
set time lines:

       The committee's deadline provided a convenient stratagem 
     for those who were determined not to cooperate. Bureaucrats 
     in some agencies appeared to be attempting to thwart the 
     investigative process by delivering documents at an 
     extraordinary slow pace. The deadline provided critical 
     leverage for attorneys of witnesses in dealing with the 
     committee on whether their clients would appear without 
     immunity, and when in the process they might be called.

  This is exactly what is taking place--holding back documents and 
documentation until the critical moment. Wait until the committee goes 
out of existence and then say, ``Oh, by the way, I was culling my files 
* * *'' Look, that is preposterous. This is the second major player to 
do this, the other being Mr. Ickes and his lawyer. Guess what his 
lawyer found? Mr. Ickes is deputy chief of the White House. His lawyer 
found the same kind of information. Guess what? In the same way. He 
culled his files and found them. Why would you not undertake this when 
we issued subpoenas months and months and months ago?
  There have been more editorials than this Senator cares to go 
through. Almost by a 5-to-1 ratio, the editorials say the Whitewater 
work should continue. Even though they did not say it should continue 
without a deadline, they indicate that, obviously, the work and the 
investigation has to be conducted in a way not to unduly politicize 
this investigation. We understand that there are political 
ramifications. We understand that on both sides.
  I think it is instructive to look at two articles. One is the New 
York Times. I do not deprecate any source of editorials. They have a 
right to think what they do. I think it is instructive when they say, 
``The Senate's duty cannot be truncated because of the campaign 
calendar.'' That is the New York Times, not Senator D'Amato. That is 
not a partisan vehicle for Republican or conservative policies. Very 
clearly, the question then is: What are my friends afraid of? What is 
the White House afraid of? What are they hiding? What are they hiding?
  Now, it has been said that, ``You will never end this.'' Look, I will 
put forth now that we are willing to say we will conclude this in 4 
months. We think the trial will take 6 to 8 weeks, maybe a little 
longer. That would give us 6 to 8 weeks, depending on when the trial in 
Little Rock ends. Why do I say trial? There are key witnesses, who have 
been unavailable, that this committee would like to examine. We would 
like to examine them and find out what they know or what they do not 
know. By the way, some of them may be unwilling to come in.
  I do not know how much more generous we can be. Certainly, to set a 
time deadline of April 5 is silly and would guarantee that we could not 
bring in these witnesses. It would guarantee, I think, the kind of 
thing that we got in that letter that was sent to us, in which the 
lawyer, in a very artful way, claims attorney-client privileged 
communications with the private counsel for the President.
  What we will do is have all of these witnesses that we seek to get 
documents from simply talking to the President's lawyer, and then you 
have automatic attorney-client privilege raised. That is wrong. We may 
have to fight that out, and we may have to take it to the floor of the 
Senate and ask for enforcement of the subpoena, and we will do it. We 
will do it.
  I do not know if those documents or that information will give us new 
information, information that we are not aware of. But I have to ask, 
``why would you hold this back?''
  Why would you not let us see the so-called privileged log so we could 
determine whether or not this was noted as something that was 
privileged earlier on, or is this just a convenient way to keep the 
committee from getting information and the American people from getting 
facts they are entitled to.
  I had a radio commentator who said, ``I am sick of this Whitewater.'' 
I have to tell you, ours is not to be an extraordinary, wonderful show. 
That is not the job of this committee. Ours is not to be entertaining. 
Ours is to get the facts. That is what we are attempting to do. But we 
have been thwarted every inch of the way.
  Again, here is the New York Times. What do they say? ``The Senate's 
duty cannot be canceled or truncated because of the campaign 
calendar.'' Then it goes on to say something very illuminating: ``Any 
certain date for terminating the hearings would encourage even more 
delay in producing subpoenaed documents that the committee has endorsed 
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.''
  Now, these are facts. Facts. We have not had the factual information 
we have required and we are entitled to. We have been dealt with, I 
believe, disingenuously by many of the witnesses through their counsels 
in holding back information. I cannot believe a lawyer, in terms of 
searching for information, would not have revealed the facts and 
information repeatedly. If one were to look at the transcripts of the 
testimony, we will see witnesses who cannot remember, who forget over 
and over and over again.
  Officer O'Neill, the uniformed officer who was on duty at the White 
House the night of Vincent Foster's death, testified he was about to 
secure Foster's office. He saw Maggie Williams. Who is Maggie Williams? 
She is the assistant chief of staff to the First Lady, Hillary Clinton. 
He saw her carrying records out of Foster's office and place them in 
her office.
  Now, his testimony is very detailed. Williams and other White House 
insiders present at the same time, deny the records were removed. 
Williams testified that she did not remove documents from his office.
  The fact of the matter is we found documents, billing records that we 
know were in the possession of Mr. Foster. We know that; we have his 
own personal handwriting affixed to the billing documents. Guess where 
they show up? Upstairs in the residence of the White House.
  Now, how do you think they got there? How do you think they got 
there? By the way, Officer O'Neill has no reason to make up a story. He 
is not going to make a story up.
  We have another young man by the name of Castleton. Officer O'Neill 
says, ``I saw Evelyn Lieberman walk out of the counsel suite; she stood 
in front of the doorway, and I looked at her.'' Again, locking the 
office was mentioned.

       A few seconds later, I saw her come out with Mr. Nussbaum, 
     come out behind her, and I saw Maggie Williams come out and 
     turn to the direction I was standing and carrying what I 
     would describe as folders, and she had them down in front of 
     her as she walked down in the direction of where I was 
     standing. She started to enter her office. She had to brace 
     the folders on her arm, on a cabinet, and then she entered 
     the office and came out within a few more seconds and locked 
     the door.

  How did he know that this was Maggie Williams? He says, ``When Maggie 
Williams did walk out of the office and walked in my direction, Miss 
Lieberman said, `That is Maggie Williams. She is the First Lady's chief 
of staff.' ''
  He goes on.

       Question. A lot of questions have been asked about the fact 
     you indicated some uncertainty whether there was a box on top 
     of the folders. Are you in any doubt that Maggie Williams was 
     carrying folders as she walked out of the White House 
     counsel's office and walked past you into her own office?
       Answer. I am not in any doubt about it at all, sir.
       Question. Were you not sure, right?
       Answer. I was, yes, sir.
       Question. You are not playing games with us and not going 
     to tell us you are certain about something if you are not?
       Answer. No, sir.

  Let me continue here. There is a young man by the name of Castleton, 
a White House intern who worked on the Clinton 1992 campaign; this is 
not a person who is out to get President Clinton. He testified that at 
Maggie William's request, he carried a box of documents that had been 
removed from Vincent Foster's office. This box was moved from Maggie 
William's office to the First Lady's personal residence. During the 
trip to the First Lady's office, Castleton testifies that Williams told 
him that the First Lady wanted to review these records.
  Now, Maggie Williams, she does not remember. She did not remember. 
She

[[Page S1619]]

says that she would never tell him that. Why would she tell this fellow 
this? That is what she testifies to.
  Why would Castleton make up a story like that? How do you think 
realistically the billing files turned up in the personal residence--
the billing files of the Rose Law Firm; the billing files that really 
point to critical times and dates; the billing files that demonstrate 
that indeed the Rose Law Firm and Mrs. Clinton in particular had 
numerous calls with Seth Ward, Seth Ward being the eventual purchaser, 
one of the purchasers of the Castle Grande property. I think there were 
14 to 15 conversations, meetings and/or calls, during a relatively 
short period of time, during a matter of 4 or 5 months. This is not 
inconsequential. This is Seth Ward, Webb Hubble's father-in-law.
  One would ask, why would Webb Hubble not have been doing that work? 
One would have to come to the conclusion, given the nature of those 
transactions--and those transactions wound up costing the American 
taxpayers, ultimately, $3.8 million, taxpayers' money--that those 
transactions were not bona fide. As a matter of fact, Federal officials 
have characterized them as ``sham transactions'' that really were the 
kind of thing that led to the looting of the bank.
  ``Let me ask you, when Mr. Chertoff raised the question to Mr. 
Castleton, did you understand that the box you were taking was a box of 
files that originated in Mr. Foster's office?''
  ``I did understand that, sir.'' This is Mr. Castleton, a young man 
that worked on the Clinton campaign; he still works at the White House.

       Mr. Chertoff. You heard that from Maggie Williams?
       Mr. Castleton. Yes.
       Mr. Chertoff. Let me ask you, Mr. Castleton, on the way to 
     the residence after you picked up the box, you were walking 
     up with Maggie Williams on the way to your residence. What 
     were you told by Maggie Williams about the box being taken up 
     to the residence?
       Mr. Castleton. I was told that the contents of the box 
     needed to be reviewed.
       Mr. Chertoff. Reviewed by whom?

  This is a young man that worked on the Clinton campaign in 1992, a 
young man who was working in the White House, a young man who still 
works in the White House.

       Mr. Castleton. By the First Lady.
       Mr. Chertoff. And is this something that Margaret Williams 
     told you as you were walking up?
       Mr. Castleton. As we were walking from the place where I 
     originally picked up the boxes to the residence.

  Now, counsel goes on further. This young man is unequivocal. I have 
to ask a question: Why would he lie? Why would Officer O'Neill lie? Why 
would he lie? He had no reason to make this up. Why would somebody who, 
as a partisan, has every right to be for one or the other--he went out 
and worked for the President--why would he would deliberately just make 
this up out of his head?
  And then, do not forget there were intervening times. They could have 
said, ``I imagined; I heard.'' He did not do that. It was unequivocal.
  Counsel says, ``Now, what did Margaret Williams say to you?''
  ``Miss Huber, she called.''
  Miss Huber is a longtime Clinton aide who eventually found the 
billing records. Where? In the personal residence of the First Lady and 
the President.

       Miss Huber. She called and said that Mrs. Clinton had asked 
     her to call me to take her to the residence to put this box 
     in our third floor office. We call it an office.
       Mr. Chertoff. Had Margaret Williams, on an earlier 
     occasion, talked to you about storing records in the 
     residence?
       Miss Huber. No.
       Mr. Chertoff. This was first time you had ever done that?
       Ms. Huber. Yes, sir.
       And you specifically recall that the First Lady had made 
     that request?
       Yes.

  Now, look, is Ms. Huber lying? Is Officer O'Neill lying? Ms. Huber 
has spent 20 years with the Clintons. Do you think she lied? She did 
not lie. She told the truth.
  Listen to this. It is very instructive. It is very instructive. This 
woman, Ms. Huber, is the person who stores personal documents and puts 
them away for the Clintons.
  Mr. Chertoff says, ``Had Margaret Williams on any earlier occasion 
ever talked to you about ever storing records in the residence?''
  And Ms. Huber says, ``No.''
  Again, I think this is rather interesting. This is the first time. So 
Mr. Chertoff says:

       This the first time she ever had done this?

       Yes, sir.
       And she told you specifically the First Lady had made this 
     request?
       Yes.

  Now, let me tell you something. Here we are talking about three 
people, three people. Officer O'Neill, who says that he actually saw 
Maggie Williams removing documents from Vince Foster's office. She 
denies it.
  Here is the second young man, Mr. Castleton. He worked for President 
Clinton in the campaign. He still works for the White House; he 
obviously has an affinity for the President and First Lady. He has no 
reason to make up an adverse story. What does he say? He says Maggie 
Williams told him, ``We are bringing these documents up to the First 
Lady.'' And, ``The First Lady wants to review them.'' Wants to review 
them.
  He did not equivocate.
  ``Are you sure,'' we said.
  ``Yes.''
  ``Are you sure?''
  ``Yes.''
  And then we take Ms. Huber, a woman who ran the Rose Law Firm. She 
was the office manager there. She was in charge of the Governor's 
Mansion. She is a special assistant at the White House, a close 
confidant of the Clintons. She is the woman who stores their various 
papers, such as, I think she testified, income tax records and other 
papers, deeds of their homes, et cetera. We are talking about a trusted 
confidant, a friend of the Clintons.
  And get this. You must understand how unusual this set of 
transactions were. Mrs. Clinton, again, gives an order, an order that 
Maggie Williams relays to this young man. She says, ``We have to take 
these documents upstairs because Mrs. Clinton wants to review them.''
  When we asked Maggie Williams about that she denies it. ``Why would I 
tell him?'' Of course she told him. He did not make that up.
  But are we going to say that Officer O'Neill was wrong? That this 
young man made up this story? And that Ms. Huber, Carolyn Huber, who 
has been with the Clintons for years and years and years and years, 
that she would dream this up? Listen to what Mr. Chertoff, our counsel, 
asked. He said:
  ``Had Maggie Williams on any earlier occasion talked to you about 
ever storing records in the residence?''
  Ms. Huber said, ``No, no.''
  ``Mr. Chertoff. This was the first time she asked you that you had 
done that?''
  ``Yes, sir.''
  ``And she told you specifically that the First Lady had made these 
requests?''
  She says, ``Yes.''
  Are we really saying here that Ms. Huber made this story up? That she 
lied? Listen to the question:

       Had she told you specifically that the First Lady had made 
     this request?
       Yes.
       Had you ever been asked to do this before by Maggie 
     Williams?
       No.

  These are the kinds of things that we find. They may be embarrassing. 
I have not brought these out before but, I tell you, it demonstrates 
the need to continue and to get the facts. And then we have the 
mysterious--I call it the miraculous appearance of these documents.
  Let me ask you, how do you think the documents got there, given the 
testimony of Officer O'Neill? Given the testimony of Tom Castleton, a 
young assistant who works in the White House, who said he was 
instructed to take the documents there and that Mrs. Clinton wanted to 
review these files? That is what he was told by Maggie Williams. Given 
the fact that Carolyn Huber had never been asked by the chief of staff 
for the First Lady to take files upstairs? She had been asked by the 
First Lady, had been asked by the President. Indeed she was their 
confidant. Never been asked before, but, more specifically, had been 
told that these instructions came by way of the First Lady.
  And then where do the files, the billing records, show up? Do you 
really wonder how they got there? Do we really believe the butler 
brought them there? How could the butler get his hands on them? Did he 
go into Vince

[[Page S1620]]

Foster's office, unseen by anybody and everybody? Do we really want to 
be serious about this? Or do we want to trivialize it and say, ``Well, 
it is political.''
  We can do that. That is fine. I am used to that. That is fine. What 
the heck, they have a file over there on me at the White House that 
their staff has been directed to compile, that they sent over to the 
DNC. I did not know that was the kind of thing that our Government was 
involved in. I did not think that the White House should be doing that 
kind of thing. I have heard about enemies' lists in the past. Is that 
the kind of business we are in? We want to stop the investigation? This 
is what we are going to do and we do not care who we slander and how we 
do it? And do we really use Government employees to become engaged in 
this kind of thing?
  It is bad enough if you are going to do that out of a political 
party. Let them do it. I do not say it is good. I do not say it is bad. 
It takes place. But, I mean, are we going to have Federal employees at 
the White House engage in that kind of thing? Are we going to have them 
be instructed by their counsel, by one of their counsels, who tells 
them: Let us get a file. Give us all the dirt you have on the Senator 
and send it over to the Democratic National Committee so we can get one 
of their guys to go out and continue to make regular attacks.
  It is not going to keep me from calling them as I see them. Let me 
tell you something, if there are facts that are exculpatory and there 
is nothing wrong, then, fine. This is just one little, tiny area.
  If we want to talk about this for days and days on the floor of the 
Senate we can do that and we will continue to do that. And let me serve 
notice, you may block this by way of a rollcall, a party rollcall. 
People have a right to vote any way they want. We will continue this 
work. And if we have to do it through the Banking Committee, we will do 
it.
  Let me tell you, I have not asked to go beyond the scope of that 
resolution and I have resisted calls to get into other areas. I have 
resisted them. But my inclination will not be to do that if we are 
forced to go through a very circuitous process, in which ours is to get 
the facts.
  When the New York Times--you can quote 32 others and you can quote 
letters to the editors, et cetera, that say this is a political witch 
hunt, this or that--when they say that we should continue the work and 
gather the facts, do not truncate this, I do not think there can be a 
clearer call.
  Let me go on. Here is Mr. Chertoff, in discussing some events with 
Miss Williams. He says, ``The fellow that helped you take the box, the 
papers, up to the residence?'' She is talking about this young 
Castleton, Mr. Chertoff is. Miss Williams says, ``Yes.''
  Mr. Chertoff, the counsel said, ``Did you tell him that the reason 
that documents had to go to the residence was so that the President or 
the First Lady could review their contents?
  ``No,'' she says. ``I do not recall saying that to Tom Castleton.''
  Mr. Chertoff then goes on, ``When you say you don't recall, are you 
telling us affirmatively that you didn't say it or are you just saying 
that you don't have a recollection one way or the other?''
  ``Miss Williams. Well, I would like to say--'' now listen to this--
``affirmatively I did not say it, because I cannot imagine why I would 
have that discussion with an intern about the files, going to the 
President and the First Lady. I know that I told them we were going to 
the residence because I figured he needed to know where he was going. 
But I cannot imagine that I said more than that. So I do not recall 
having the discussion with him.''
  Mr. Chertoff later on goes on:

       Well, let me read you--that this intern testified in his 
     deposition, starting at line 7, page 139, and he said, ``And, 
     what did she tell you? Answer: She told me that they were 
     taking the boxes into the residence.'' That part you agree 
     with?

  Ms. Williams says, ``Yes.''
  Mr. Chertoff then says:

       And, did she say where in the residence? Answer. No. 
     Question. Did she say why you were taking them there?

  Here is Mr. Castleton:

       She says ``yes.''
       Question. ``What was her statement? She says that the 
     President, or the First Lady, had to review the contents of 
     the boxes to determine what was in them. You disagree with 
     that?''
       Ms. Williams. ``Yes. I do.''
       Mr. Chertoff. ``And you also do not agree with Mr. 
     Nussbaum's testimony that in his discussion with you he 
     indicated that the documents would go to the residence and 
     the Clintons would be there and they would make a decision 
     where they go? You disagree with that?''
       Ms. Williams. ``No. That is not what I recall.''
       Mr. Chertoff. ``You disagree with both of those?''
       Ms. Williams. ``That is not what I recall.''

  Mr. President, here we have a Secret Service officer, Officer 
O'Neill, who testifies that on the night of Vince Foster's death, that 
he sees Maggie Williams moving these documents--and he testifies with 
particular clarity. Maggie Williams denies that and takes polygraph 
tests. They sustain her contention that she did not do that. In 
fairness to her we have to say that.
  I think we also have to understand and note that we do not know how 
many polygraph tests she may have taken. There is also a very real 
question with respect to the reliability of them given the manner and 
the circumstances in which they are administered. But there is no 
reason, no earthly reason, for Officer O'Neill, who has been on the 
security detail of the Secret Service for some 17 years, to have 
conjured up his testimony or to have made that up or to create or to 
fabricate.
  No. 2, this is just one little part. But I focus in on it because I 
think it answers the question as to how the documents got into the 
residence--the documents being the billing records that just came to 
light in January, months and months and months after--2 years after the 
special counsel had subpoenaed them.
  So people knew. I mean, the White House lawyers knew. Everyone knew 
that these documents were requested and were sought for 2 years. They 
were covered by a subpoena. They were covered by our request and 
subsequent subpoena in October.
  (Mr. COVERDELL assumed the chair.)
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let us take a look at this. So we have 
the officer. He sees files being removed. We then have the testimony of 
Mr. Castleton, the young White House intern who is now working at the 
White House and worked for the President in his election campaign in 
1992 and probably will be working on this one. So he has no reason, no 
hostility, no animus to try to create a story. He says that Maggie 
Williams told him they were taking these documents up to the White 
House because ``Mrs. Clinton wants to review them.''
  Then we add to that Mrs. Huber, Carolyn Huber--who worked for the 
Clintons for 20 years, was really in charge of their personal day-to-
day matters, the archiving of important documents, their deeds, their 
tax records, et cetera. She is the person who says that when she 
initially found these billing records back in August of last year--and 
I believe her--she thought they were being left there because things 
were generally left on the table, the Clintons would leave things on 
the table to be filed by her, and that is what she did.
  She took these and put them into a box and carried them downstairs to 
her office where she would review eventually that and other materials 
to decide where they should be placed. It was not until January 4 that 
she discovered what these were.

  How did these documents get there? Who had them? Who had control over 
them? Who deliberately withheld them from the special counsel, from the 
RTC, and from others? How do you think they got there? Do you think 
Officer O'Neill dreamed up the fact that Maggie Williams took documents 
out of Vince Foster's office? Do we think this young man, Tom 
Castleton, dreamed up the fact that it was said that indeed Mrs. 
Clinton wanted to review these files, and they were carried up, she 
asked to have carried up these boxes of documents. And what about Mrs. 
Huber, a Clinton confidant for 20 years, who ran the Governor's mansion 
in Little Rock, was office manager in the Rose Law Firm and is an 
assistant now in the White House, who is in charge of archiving all of 
the most personal of their documents? Do you think she made up the 
story when she said, for the first time--never before, you have to 
understand--she passed an assignment to carry documents up by the

[[Page S1621]]

chief of staff, Maggie Williams, to the First Lady? This is the first 
time the First Lady asked her. She was specific in saying that this 
took place and Mrs. Clinton wanted to look at these papers.
  Is there any wonder why? This is not something that you could easily 
lose--a slip of paper, a scrap of paper inadvertently in the bottom of 
a desk drawer or in a file that one would not come up with, you know, 
the general file. These are the records.
  Why do you think the records were discovered in August? That was the 
very time when the RTC was raising questions with respect to the 
various transactions.
  What is illuminating about this is that there are a number of times, 
occasions, when the Rose Law Firm--in particular, one of its partners--
had conversations with Seth Ward about a transaction that was 
characterized by Federal banking regulators as a ``sham.'' This is a 
transaction that would eventually lead to the loss of $3.8 million of 
taxpayers' money and, obviously, one with which Webb Hubbell did not 
want to have his name associated because the deal maker in that case 
was his father-in-law, Seth Ward. His father-in-law. That is why he had 
another partner on that deal. I do not know what they were going to do. 
But eventually Seth Ward had to pay back $335,000 when the bank 
collapsed and the RTC said, ``You are going to give us back this 
money.'' He had a big lawsuit between McDougal and the bank. He won 
that lawsuit because lots of the facts that probably should have been 
presented at trial--the fact that it was an inside, cozy deal--really 
did not come out. There was $335,000 in commissions that Ward got for 
not doing a darned thing. Why give that money for not a thing? There 
was a 10-percent commission for land that was sold by this fellow 
McDougal, partner to the Clintons, from one bank to the other.
  Now, look, the pattern continues. Documents are produced because they 
fall into the hands of the people who cannot nor will allow themselves 
to be placed in a position of obstructing justice. When Mrs. Huber 
eventually realized what these documents were and that they were 
subpoenaed materials, when she saw them on January 4, she did what she 
was supposed to do; she called this attorney, called White House 
counsel. They came over and made copies. The committee got them.
  So how do you think the documents got there? Do you think they were 
in that box that young man carried up there? If they were in that box, 
then how is it, as maintained by the White House, that everything was 
sent over, that nobody looked at this. I think that is the most 
unreasonable, incredible story I have heard.
  Let me tell you why. You had a lawyer, a trusted confident and 
lawyer, who met an untimely, tragic death and he had some of your most 
sensitive papers in terms of your tax treatment and liability in terms 
of a variety of issues that could be certainly embarrassing and 
certainly important to you. And he died, and you ask someone either at 
his office, a coworker, a secretary, ``Please get me those documents 
because I want to have them transferred over to my new lawyer.'' If you 
wanted them to be transferred directly, would you not ask them to 
transfer them directly?
  But would it not be more reasonable, and perfectly appropriate, to 
say I wish to look at these documents before I send them over to my 
lawyer? There may be things that are relevant or irrelevant, pertinent 
or not. There may be documents in there that have nothing to do with 
us.
  And, indeed, very interestingly, there was a document that apparently 
made its way up to the White House. It made its way up to the White 
House and somehow mysteriously got kicked back because it was not 
germane. Now, the Clinton lawyers did not send that back. We have not 
found out how it got back. That is the mysterious document that travels 
in reverse. We do not know how that document got back.
  But the point of the matter is, it would not be unreasonable for 
anyone, anyone, least of all the First Family, to want to review these. 
And so it becomes very, very difficult for us to understand, some of 
us, how it is that the billing records show up. And, indeed, if no one 
reviewed the documents, you would have suspected or imagined that they 
would have been there. These were documents that Vince Foster was 
working on. He has notations all over them, his own personal hand. So 
how do you think the documents got there? You do not think that they 
were transported there?
  And what about the documents that Tom Castleton transported? Wouldn't 
most people want to see what documents concerning your own life were 
being sent to a new lawyer? I think it is absolutely extraordinary to 
believe that you would have no interest in checking this out, that you 
would leave it to someone else, that you would leave it to a new 
lawyer. It is very difficult to believe.
  So what would the conclusion be if one were to say it would be 
difficult to believe? It means that somebody did look at these. But, 
you see, once you take a stand and put out a story as the White House 
did--because I think they were embarrassed when it was discovered that 
these documents were secreted away in this closet for a period of 
time--they had to come out and say, yeah, they were, instead of saying, 
sure, the Clintons looked at them. It would be natural. But, see, they 
already denied that: No, never looked at them, never.
  I think that would be one of the most unnatural things, illogical 
things, not to look at your own papers, not to look at your own papers, 
not to say, well, what is there? At least I know what we sent over to 
our new lawyer, after their lawyer, their friend, had died in such a 
way.
  But, see, once you make a story up, you have to stick to it. And so 
the mystery of the disappearing, then the appearing, billing records, I 
think becomes rather logical. They were in possession of the White 
House, the First Family, right since the day that young Mr. Castleton 
brought those files, all of those files up there to be reviewed.
  Now, for the life of me, I cannot understand why they did not say, of 
course, we looked at them. What would I say? Would I say it was wrong 
or evil for the First Family to look at their own personal papers? Of 
course not. It would be illogical to suggest that they should not or 
would not or could not. And I know when I have heard colleagues say, 
oh, well, they would be accused of all kinds of conspiratorial things 
if they looked at them. Come on. That is nonsense. People have a right 
to look at their own documents, the President, Vice President, anybody.
  So here we are at this point in time. The record is replete with 
these kinds of inconsistencies, and I think they are more than 
inconsistencies. I believe that Maggie Williams did not give us 
testimony that provided all the facts to us. I believe that she did not 
accurately relate the facts, particularly with respect to the 
instructions she received about moving these documents and who they 
were there for, and I think that helps answer the question of the 
mysteriously reappearing documents.
  Let me cite again the New York Times:

       The Senate's duty cannot be truncated nor canceled because 
     of the campaign calendar. Any certain date for terminating of 
     the hearings would encourage even more delay in producing 
     subpoenaed documents than the committee has endured. The 
     committee has been forced to await such events as the 
     criminal trial of the McDougals.

  I am ready and willing to do the work of the committee as 
expeditiously as possible. Notwithstanding, we should not set arbitrary 
time limits. Why? Because that provides an opportunity, as has been 
stated before, for purposeful delay that I believe has occurred before 
this committee. And I do not know of anyone who can say that we have 
received all of the documents. How can you say that? I got a letter 
from a lawyer on behalf of one of President Clinton's closest aides 
that says he is not turning over documents to us, and he is raising a 
privilege that the President said they would not. We are going to 
cooperate. So I know for certain that there are documents that we are 
entitled to that are being withheld deliberately--deliberately.
  I say that I would be willing, and I ask my colleagues on the other 
side, to consider putting a time limit of 10 weeks after the Little 
Rock trial concludes, no longer than 4 months from this point, because, 
as my colleagues have pointed out, the trial could go on indefinitely. 
There has to be an end at some point because there are other important 
considerations, and situations

[[Page S1622]]

that we want to attempt to avoid. And it was my intention to attempt to 
avoid right from the inception. I thought we could have had our work 
completed. We ran into the problems of not getting witnesses and 
documents heretofore. But I recognize that there are some on the 
Democratic side who feel very strongly that this should not continue. 
So with that in mind, I am willing to put forth that we have a 4-month 
extension or any combination of 8 to 10 weeks after the trial, 
whichever is less, whichever is less, as a finite time.
  I recognize also that if indeed there are matters of great 
consequences that come forth, then obviously it will behoove all of us 
to say that we have to continue. But if indeed there are still 
unanswered questions, and it is just a matter of us not being able to 
continue, then we have to act accordingly.
  I hope that my colleagues on the other side would consider this. By 
next week, we will get into the testimony of Susan Thomases, 
unbelievable testimony, testimony that is not credible, of this 
brilliant lawyer, a close friend of Mrs. Clinton, who cannot remember 
key dates even though they are logged in her files. And we will get 
into the extraordinary things we had to do in order the get documents 
from her. If this is the kind of thing that they want, then we will 
have to do it.
  I say, last but not least, that I will spell this out with 
specificity. And if indeed we fail in cloture the first time, we will 
take it to cloture again and again. I guess the White House will look 
at the polls to determine the impact of attempting to keep us from 
going forward and, I think, holding back facts.
  So we will make a determination. If we cannot come to a resolution we 
will have to use whatever resources we have at our disposal to do the 
best we can--and it may not be as easy and may be more cumbersome--so 
that we can to get the facts. We will do that. I will use the 
jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. And I will spell that out in 
further detail. So we will not be without resources. It will be more 
difficult. It will place a greater strain. We may have to meet a lot 
more.
  But I have put forth the basis by which we could resolve this matter 
without one side saying, ``What are you hiding?'' and the other side 
saying, ``It's nothing but politics.'' We will raise the question, what 
is the White House afraid of? What are they hiding? My colleagues on 
the other side will say this is nothing more than politics in an 
attempt to embarrass the President. No one gains by that. No one gains 
by that. So I put this offer forth, and I hope we can work this out and 
resolve our differences.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, politics or policy, that is the 
question. Mr. President, if there was ever anything that is clear as 
the noonday Sun on a cloudless day, anything that is obvious, it is 
that Whitewater is politics, pure and simple, and has nothing to do 
with policy. And the Senate should not continue this charade any 
longer.
  Mr. President, we have had 121 witnesses. We have had 40 days. We 
have had over 200 depositions. We have had 45,000 pages of documents 
that have been produced. We have had blah, blah, blah, blah, full of 
sound and fury, and absolutely signifying nothing.
  Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Whitewater 
Committee, the last time he spoke--and I wanted to ask him some 
questions, and he did not yield for that purpose--spoke about the 
comparison of Whitewater with Iran-Contra. I wanted to draw with him 
the comparisons between the two. I think the comparison of these two 
hearings really draws in sharp focus, in sharp contrast, the difference 
between policy and politics.
  In the case of Iran-Contra, Mr. President, we had a matter of grave 
national concern, national issues involving a terrorist state, Iran, 
and involving the action of the administration, as an administration 
while in office, that involved the President of the United States, 
involved the National Security Adviser while he was National Security 
Adviser, involved employees of the White House and of the Government, 
involved in some of the most critical issues then before this Nation. 
They were issues as to which the Congress needed the information in 
order to make policy, in which the administration needed the 
information in order to make policy.
  With all of those important issues, Mr. President, Iran-Contra took 
half the time that the Whitewater hearing is taking. Mr. President, I 
confess I voted for this Whitewater investigation. Frankly, I search my 
mind as to why in the world I ever voted for it in the first place.
  What are we doing with Whitewater? Does that involve the President of 
the United States as President? Oh, no. Does it involve a recent event? 
Oh, no. This is more than 10 years ago. Does it involve a matter as to 
which the Congress needs information to make policy? Oh, no.
  I mean, look, whether Whitewater was a good development or whether 
the McDougals embezzled money from the RTC or whatever are not matters 
as to which we need to make policy. If they are, they have been fully 
brought out with 121 witnesses and 45,000 pages of information.
  By the way, we have a special prosecutor that has spent over $25 
million and has a huge team down in Arkansas as we speak, looking into 
any lawbreaking. So it is not lawbreaking. It is not policy. It is not 
recent. Just what is it, Mr. President? What are all these things 
about, all these witnesses?
  I must confess to you, Mr. President, I hear all this stuff and it 
goes in one ear and out the other. I am a lawyer by training, as are 
many of my colleagues. You just cannot keep up with it because it is 
all, we know, irrelevant to anything except politics, this political 
season.
  We are told now that we need to go on for another 4 months or 10 
weeks or whatever it is. For what? We have already had the First Lady 
come down and testify. We have already had these very broad subpoenas 
that have subpoenaed everything in the Western World. They wanted all 
the e-mail that has come out of the White House. They tell me it will 
cost $200,000 just to comply with their request for e-mail.
  Undoubtedly they will, among that $200,000 worth of e-mail, they will 
be able to bring up somebody from the White House and say, did you say 
such and such in an e-mail? They will say, no, I do not remember that. 
They will be able to produce it, and it will be another one of these 
great revelations. These great revelations about, ``Can you remember 
something you did 10 years ago?'' And maybe they cannot. I hope people 
will not pull me up before a witness stand in some way and ask me about 
things that happened 10 years ago, and ``Did you make these notes or 
not?''

  The question is, are the notes significant? What do the billing 
records signify? Not much. And whatever they signify, it has already 
been brought out. The distinguished Senator from New York is free to 
argue all of these things. You know, did Susan Thomases--did Ms. 
Williams--did this person do this or that? It is all out there to the 
extent it has any relevance to anything.
  I submit it is not relevant to anything except the Presidential race. 
It is an attempt to get President Bill Clinton and the First Lady of 
this country to be put in an embarrassing position. That is all this is 
about. Everybody knows that, Mr. President. Everybody knows that. Give 
me a break.
  Are we trying to make policy here? Just what law is it that we will 
be able to amend or change or propose by virtue of Whitewater? Is the 
President charged with any wrongdoing, any violation of law? No, he is 
not. Is the First Lady charged with any violation of law? No, she is 
not. How about an ethical violation? No, they are not. But if they are, 
and if the evidence is there, we have a very partisan special 
prosecutor who has over $25 million already spent in a bottomless pit 
of money in order to be able to pursue that.
  That is a legitimate purpose. It may be illegitimately or partisanly 
pursued by the special prosecutor, but it is certainly legitimate and 
within the ambit of the law, and it is not going to be stopped by what 
we do here in the Congress. So if there is lawbreaking which has not 
been either charged or revealed so far, that special prosecutor can do 
it.
  What the special prosecutor cannot do is to have these hearings with 
all

[[Page S1623]]

these accusatory looks and tones and dredging up pieces of paper, 
throwing them out with a flourish as if they signify anything. And, Mr. 
President, we know they have no significance beyond the political race 
that is presently occurring.
  We know that if Bill Clinton were not President of the United States, 
there would be no thought of going into this kind of thing, wasting 
these kinds of resources, wasting this much time of the Congress on 
this issue. It is politics, pure and simple, unvarnished, obvious and 
clear, and I hope we do not give another nickel to this boondoggle--not 
another nickel.
  I think my colleagues are proposing giving some more money to pursue 
it further. I hope they do not give a nickel. Whatever there is here--
and there is nothing of legitimate concern for us, because it does not 
involve the President as President--it does not involve policy that we 
need to know about, it does not involve charges of wrongdoing against 
the President and the First Lady. It involves innuendoes that can be 
useful only as political fodder in a political campaign, and that is 
all. I hope we do not continue it at all.
  I must say, the distinguished Senator from Maryland is a lot closer 
to this than I am. I trust his judgment. If he would say we have to 
continue for 2 days or 5 days or whatever, I may reluctantly vote for 
it. But, Mr. President, I am so sorry that I voted for this resolution 
in the first place. I do not know what we were thinking when we 
commissioned this Whitewater boondoggle investigation. I do not know 
what we were thinking, and I hope we will terminate it as soon as we 
can. I wish we would set a precedent that we do not do this kind of 
thing.
  Look, if the other party gains the White House this year--I will not 
be around here as a Member of the Senate, but I hope our side does not 
try to do that to their side when they get in office. It is a waste of 
time, it is a waste of resources, it is a diversion from the purposes 
of this country and of this Senate and of this Government. We ought to 
get about the business of running the Government as set forth in the 
Constitution and let the candidates run the campaigns. Enough is 
enough, and we have already had too much.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________