[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 35 (Thursday, March 14, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2033-S2036]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The Senate resumed consideration of the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 1:30 p.m. having arrived, there 
will now be one-half hour of debate, equally divided, prior to voting 
on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to Senate 
Resolution 227.
  Mr. BREAUX. With that understanding, I yield myself 5 minutes in 
opposition to the pending motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I was thinking about the Whitewater 
proceedings and the stalemate we have on the floor of the U.S. Senate 
with how to proceed. I think the American public really has an interest 
in this, not just the two political parties, Democrats and Republicans.
  When I talk to people back in Louisiana and we talk about this 
Whitewater investigation, most of my constituents are not really 
certain or sure what all of this is about. They know there are some 
accusations that have been presented and that there have been some 
denials of those. But most people today are very confused about the 
entire subject that has become known as Whitewater.
  I think the American people have an interest in this that is a 
superior interest, even more superior than the interests of the 
Democratic Party members on my side and the Republican Party members on 
that side of the aisle. There is an American interest in this which 
goes far beyond politics, and I really think that is the solution we 
should be seeking as we try to resolve this issue on how to handle the 
so-called Whitewater affair. What do we need to do that puts the 
American people's interests in the front seat and the political 
parties' interests in the back seat for a change?

  Let me suggest what I think the people in my State and the people in 
America really would like to see. They would like to see this thing 
resolved. They would like to see it resolved outside the political 
arena. They would like to see it resolved. The people's interests are 
finding out what really happened, how to resolve it, and, if anything 
bad happened, that it will not happen again, and it is not who gets the 
credit or the blame.
  What we are doing in this debate is arguing about which party is 
going to get the proper advantage and the manner in which the 
Whitewater affair is brought to conclusion. That should not be what 
determines how we act and what we do.
  Let me make a suggestion of some of the things that I have heard from 
the people in my State. They have told me, ``Senator, when politicians 
investigate politicians, it produces political results, especially in 
an election year.'' That is pretty simple and pretty accurate and 
pretty easy for people to understand. When politicians investigate 
politicians, it produces political results, especially in a political 
election year. That is why we had such a difficult time trying to bring 
this to a resolution that makes sense to the average American, who is 
less concerned about the politics of all of this, but is far more 
concerned about just getting it behind us.
  If wrong was done, it should be punished. If it was not done, we 
should go on with the other problems facing the Congress and not spend 
the time we have been spending debating this issue endlessly while 
other problems continue to fester.
  Let me suggest that the Congress has already spoken about how to get 
this done outside of the political arena. Does anybody remember what 
the Congress did and why we did it when we created an independent 
counsel? I remember the arguments, and I thought they made a lot of 
sense. The argument for doing that in investigating Whitewater was 
simple. Let us take the politics out of it and make sure we do not have 
politicians investigating politicians, producing political results. 
Therefore, this Senate created the independent counsel, and the 
independent counsel has been adequately funded. There is no term limit. 
They could go on forever and always until they bring a conclusion to 
this whole case.
  As we stand here on the floor of the Senate, there is a trial going 
on, for gosh sakes, in the State of Arkansas on Whitewater. People have 
been indicted. There is a Federal prosecutor who is presenting the 
evidence in a court of law, in a Federal court. They are moving to a 
conclusion of this, and it is being done outside of the political 
arena.
  We have a former Reagan Justice Department official, Kenneth Starr, 
who was established as the independent counsel. We said we are going to 
take it out of Congress and out of politics and give it to an 
independent counsel who does not have any political baggage. He is not 
a Democratic person, a Democratic chairman, or a Democratic ranking 
member, or a Republican chairman, or Republican ranking member; he is 
an independent counsel. What did we do? We have given that person

[[Page S2034]]

 unlimited funding. Does any agency in the Government get that? Not the 
defense or anything else. He has unlimited funding. He has a 
professional staff of over 130 people that have been working since they 
began in January 1994. Guess how much money they have spent? They have 
spent $25.6 million investigating this one issue. Yet, we are spending 
time on the floor of the Senate saying, no, we like the politics so 
much that we just cannot let it go. We like the investigation so much, 
so let us extend it, and we need a little bit more money to continue 
doing that.

  We spent $400,000 in the Banking Committee in 1994 investigating, and 
$950,000 in 1995 with the special Whitewater Committee investigating 
it. The Senate spent $1.3 million-plus investigating this as a 
political interest for everybody in this body.
  Let me suggest that what the American people want--not what Congress 
wants--which is what Congress should want, is to bring this to a 
conclusion, bring it to a conclusion in a fair manner, prosecute and 
convict those who did wrong, exonerate those who have been falsely 
accused, if there are any; and if there has been no wrongdoing, finish 
it. The way to finish it is not by a continuation of politics as usual. 
I am not impugning anybody who has served hours over here, but it is 
time for the Congress to recognize what the American people want, and 
what they would like to see is a nonpolitical conclusion. A 
nonpolitical conclusion says that politics be damned; if somebody did 
something wrong, they will be prosecuted. If they did not, they will 
not.
  I think the American people recognize that, in a political election 
year with a November Presidential election, it is not going to be 
possible for a political investigation to produce anything but 
political results. The only way to ensure that that does not happen is 
to continue to allow the independent counsel, which we all created just 
for this purpose, to do his job. He has spent $25 million doing it 
already. Let them complete it. No one has suggested that they are not 
doing their job. Then, when that investigation is over, completed, at 
least the American public will be able to say, you know, they checked 
it out and they did it in the right fashion, and the politicians did 
not do it, the professionals did it.
  I urge rejection of the motion.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, there was a recent ``Nightline'' program 
that dealt with a new book on the market that, I believe, is entitled 
``Blood Sport.'' It is a book that was written by an individual by the 
name of James Stewart, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author. One of the 
books he wrote was entitled ``Den of Thieves.'' He has an impeccable 
set of credentials.
  My understanding of the genesis of this book is that Susan Thomases, 
an attorney and close personal friend of the Clintons, went to Mr. 
Stewart and suggested it for the purpose of, as my colleague from 
Louisiana had indicated, trying to come to a nonpolitical conclusion.
  So maybe where I ought to start in summing up what this ``Blood 
Sport'' is all about is going to the last comments I had intended to 
make which had to do with the conclusion that is reached in Mr. 
Stewart's book. I am going to have some quotes. The quotes are going to 
come actually from ``Nightline,'' not necessarily from the book, 
because Ted Koppel, in essence, asked Mr. Stewart what was the 
conclusion that he drew as a result of doing this book. He said it was 
``a study in the acquisition and wielding of power and, in the end, a 
study of the arrogance of power--the things they can do and get away 
with as an elected official and then how honest and candid they are 
when questioned about it.''
  It is interesting that at the time when there seems to be more and 
more interest developing in the country with respect to what went on 
with Whitewater, we had this ``Nightline'' show again the other night, 
this new book ``Blood Sport''--and now Time magazine apparently is 
going to be doing a series for 3 weeks about Whitewater--that my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle now seem to be an extension 
of the White House strategy to deal with the issue. All through this 
process they have delayed, they have misinformed, they have done 
everything possible, frankly, to move it to a point where they would be 
able to say ``this is political.''
  So what are we supposed to do? Is this because this is a political 
year, we are supposed to stop the pursuit of truth?
  Again, the charge that I think my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have opened themselves up for is that they are now an extension 
of the activities of the White House. They are going to do whatever 
they can to keep us from moving forward on this issue.
  In his book, Mr. Stewart kind of outlined what he saw as the mindsets 
of the Clintons with respect to Whitewater. Again he said on 
``Nightline'' that they had ``an attitude bordering on negligence from 
the beginning,'' that they had the ``belief that someone else will take 
care of us because of our power as high elected officials in 
Arkansas.'' They had ``a willingness to accept favors from those who 
were regulated by the State.''
  I am sure that the chairman remembers the hearings that we had with 
Beverly Bassett Schaffer, who was an individual who was appointed to a 
position of securities commissioner, I believe, in Arkansas and who 
received a phone call from Mrs. Clinton, acting as an attorney for 
Madison, asking the question, ``Who should I send some papers with 
regard to the preferred stock issue, who should I send those to in your 
office?'' Mind you, there has been a lot said from the First Lady's 
perspective that she was trying to do everything possible to make sure 
that there was no impression created that she would be using her 
position for her personal gain.

  I ask you, if there really was a concern about this, why would you 
risk shattering everything that you were trying to accomplish by making 
a phone call down to the commissioner herself, and say, ``Who should I 
send it to in your office?'' It makes absolutely no sense.
  On some of the basic underlying issues, again, author Stewart flatly 
contradicts Hillary Clinton. He said, ``It is simply not true'' that 
the Clintons had no active role in the Whitewater investment. To the 
contrary, Mrs. Clinton ``singlehandedly took control of the 
investment'' in 1986 once the McDougal empire began to crumble. She 
handles everything from loan renewals to correspondence. She also had 
possession of all the records, many of which, by the way, are now 
missing.
  Mr. Stewart points out that the Clintons are likely guilty of at 
least one Federal crime, the same Federal crime for which the McDougals 
are now on trial.
  Mind you, the reason I did this this way today was that I wanted to 
use an unbiased source, if you will. The friends on the other side of 
the aisle say we are being political about this. I am responding to 
both a book and to a series of articles that will take place, the first 
of which was in Time magazine this week, and ``Nightline.'' I mean, 
this is what he is saying, that the crime that I was referring to a 
moment ago is knowingly inflating the value of their share of 
Whitewater investment to a financial institution.
  In a 1987 financial disclosure statement, Mrs. Clinton listed the 
value of their share of Whitewater as nearly double the bank's recent 
estimates, and she did this to get more money to shore up a failing 
investment. If that is proven, that is in fact is fraud.
  There also are some interesting comments with respect to the Foster 
suicide. Stewart believes that the reasons Mr. Foster listed in his 
suicide note do not actually reflect the true nature of all that was 
bothering him at the time, and notably again the author said there were 
things ``so serious that he''--Foster--``will not dare write them 
down.'' Those things involve--again, this is what the author is 
suggesting--those things involve the First Lady, Whitewater, and 
ethical violations which put Web Hubbell in a Federal prison.
  Mr. Stewart also believes, as I do, that it is entirely possible that 
the billing records that mysteriously turned up in the White House 
residence were formerly in Vince Foster's office. If that is so, one or 
more felonies have been committed, and it is just a question of 
figuring out who the guilty parties are.

  With respect to damage control efforts, according, again, to the 
author,

[[Page S2035]]

Mr. Stewart, after White House staff had introduced the notion of 
cooperating fully with the investigators, Mrs. Clinton interrupted and 
said--and I am quoting him now as he is quoting here--``I am not going 
to have people pouring over our documents. After all, we are the 
President.''
  The suggestion here is that by virtue of the grandeur of power of 
their office, they should not have to endure the experience of 
legitimate investigation. In essence, it says to me that the First Lady 
believes she and the President are above the law.
  A moment ago I read the conclusion--I am going to state it again--of 
what Mr. Stewart's book is about. He said it was ``a study in the 
acquisition and wielding of power and, in the end, a study of the 
arrogance of power--the things that they can do and get away with as an 
elected official, and then how honest and candid they are when 
questioned about it.''
  If any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are listening, 
I would ask you to ponder the final words of Mr. Stewart--I believe an 
unbiased source, a source that Mrs. Clinton and her friend Susan 
Thomases believes to be evenhanded and capable of finding out the truth 
about their involvement in Whitewater. He said, ``The truth is 
important in our society. Just as important in our society, I do not 
think that you can put a price tag on these things.'' And then he goes 
on to say that if you feel the investigation has been harsh or nasty, 
the reason for that--again quoting him--``is because the truth was 
never honored in the first place.''
  So I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that it is time 
to quit filibustering. It is time to stop being an extension of the 
White House strategy. It is time to allow the American people to get 
the facts and to let them draw their own conclusions as to who is right 
and who is wrong.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 7 minutes 
remaining. The Senator from New York has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, I think that a very significant statement was made on 
the floor of the Senate yesterday by the distinguished Senator from 
Hawaii, Senator Inouye.
  Senator Inouye, as we know, chaired the Iran-Contra hearings. He 
served on the Watergate hearings. And he said yesterday in the course 
of his remarks--and I am now quoting him--``This Republican extension 
request''--referring to the resolution that is before us--``is 
unprecedented, and it is unreasonable.''
  Let me repeat that. It ``is unprecedented, and it is unreasonable. 
The U.S. Senate has never before conducted an open-ended political 
investigation of a sitting American President during a Presidential 
election year.''
  He is correct on that. This is unprecedented in all the previous 
inquiries and investigations. My distinguished colleague from 
Connecticut earlier in the debate put in a table which indicated that 
all of those inquiries have had fixed dates for their conclusion.
  Senator Inouye later went on in his statement--referring back to the 
work of the Iran-Contra Ccommittee, which completed its work actually 
in significantly less time than is being proposed for this committee--
to say, and I quote him: ``Yes, there were requests by Democrats and 
Republicans''--this is back at the time when we were going to undertake 
the Iran-Contra hearings.
  Yes, there were requests by Democrats and Republicans that we seek an 
indefinite time limit on the hearings, but the chairman of the House 
committee, Representative Hamilton, and I, in conjunction with our vice 
chairs, strongly recommended against an open-ended investigation. We 
sought to ensure that our investigation was completed in a timely 
fashion to preserve the committee's bipartisanship and to avoid any 
exploitation of President Reagan during an election year.
  At that time, one of the most consistent spokesman that the Iran-
Contra inquiry not extend into the election year and not be open ended, 
as some Democrats, who were in control of the Congress, were intending, 
one of the most consistent exponents of a limitation in that regard was 
Senator Dole, who repeatedly, both in this Chamber and in conversations 
with the media, underscored the point of having a closing date and 
keeping the matter out of the Presidential election year. What happened 
was that the Democrats responded to Senator Dole and, in fact, not only 
agreed to an ending date but moved that date forward to get it even 
further away from the election year. In fact, Senator Dole recognized 
and acknowledged that in the course of debate in this Chamber.
  We have a comparable situation here. In fact, Senator Dole said:

       I am heartened by what I understand to be the strong 
     commitment of both the chairman and vice chairman to avoid a 
     fishing expedition. I am pleased to note that as a result of 
     a series of discussions which have involved myself, the 
     majority leader and the chairman and vice chairman designate 
     of the committee, we have changed the date on which the 
     committee's authorization will expire.

  In fact, what they did was they moved it up. That was thanks very 
much to Senator Inouye's leadership, who, as I said, stated yesterday, 
and let me just quote him again:

       We sought to ensure that our investigation was completed in 
     a timely fashion to preserve the committee's bipartisanship 
     and to avoid any exploitation of President Reagan during an 
     election year.

  When this resolution was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote, 
an essential premise of it was the ending date of February 29. Many of 
us believed the committee could have completed its work within that 
timeframe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SARBANES. I yield myself the remaining amount of time. Is there 2 
additional minutes?

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two additional minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. Senator Inouye indicated yesterday that the Iran-Contra 
Committee intensified its hearings as it approached its deadline in 
order to complete the work. They did 21 days of hearings in the last 23 
days.
  This committee, in contrast, in the last 2 weeks of February, before 
the February 29 date, did 1 day of hearing--in the last 2 weeks. The 
Iran-Contra Committee did 21 out of 23 days. This committee, the 
Whitewater Committee, has worked at a much more intense pace at an 
earlier time. Back last summer, in 3 weeks in the latter part of July 
and the first part of August, the committee held 13 days of hearings.
  The minority leader, Senator Daschle, did not put out a proposal: 
Well, you have reached February 29. This is the end of it. In an effort 
to be reasonable and accommodating, he said, we will agree to an 
extension of 5 weeks in which to conduct hearings, an additional month 
beyond that in which to submit the report. Let me point out this 
committee itself held 13 days of hearings during a 3-week period last 
summer. The Iran-Contra Committee held 21 days of hearings in less than 
a 4-week period in July and August 1987. So an intense hearing schedule 
of that sort is clearly possible. It has been done before. It could be 
done again.
  I submit that the proposal offered by the minority leader is a 
reasonable proposal. It is an effort to provide an accommodation in 
this matter, allow the committee to continue its work and bring it to 
an appropriate conclusion, and avoid moving this thing into an election 
year with a perception, increasing perception, that it is being done 
for partisan political reasons.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I do not think it behooves anyone to 
denigrate a proposal to accomplish that which I believe the American 
people want and are entitled to. More importantly, it is our 
constitutional responsibility to get the facts and hold these hearings.
  The offer put forth by our colleagues on the other side is 
inadequate. It is a step in the right direction, but it is inadequate 
because there are key witnesses, facts, and information that will not 
be available to us by April 5. They just will not be available to us. 
There is no way, that witnesses who are presently on trial, or who will 
be called to testify while the trial is taking place will be available 
to this committee. Their proposal will place us in the position that, 
come April 5, we will be back

[[Page S2036]]

here and they will say once again you are doing it.
  That is why we have to reject it. I hope we can come to some kind of 
meaningful understanding that would give us the ability to go forth and 
have, at least, a reasonable opportunity of getting as many of the 
facts as we can, and avoid the political season and the conventions.
  Now, my colleague, Senator Mack, has pointed out that much of the 
delay has been occasioned because the administration has not promptly 
produced--and/or people who work for the administration--documents that 
were subpoenaed and requested.
  Second, this is not some political conspiracy. There have been nine 
people who have pled guilty already--nine. David Hale pled guilty. He 
was a former judge, friend of the Clintons, and friend of their 
business partners, the McDougals; Matthews pled guilty to trying to 
bribe Hale; Fitzhugh, he worked in the bank, pled guilty; Robert 
Palmer, real estate appraiser for the Madison bank, pled guilty; Web 
Hubbell, former law partner of the First Lady, pled guilty; Chris Wade, 
former real estate broker for Whitewater, pled guilty; Neal Ainley, 
former president of the Perry County Bank--by the way, that is the bank 
that lent Governor Clinton $180,000 for his 1990 gubernatorial race--
pled guilty; Stephen Smith, former Clinton aide, former president and 
coowner of the Madison Bank and Trust that was owned by Governor 
Tucker, he pled guilty; Larry Kuca, former director, Madison Financial 
Corp., pled guilty.
  Now, let me tell you, we are going to attempt to bring a number of 
these people in to get the complete story. I have to say it seems to me 
that my colleagues have become an extension of the White House in 
attempting to keep the facts from coming to the American people. If 
they want to do that, then they are going to have to take the onus of 
these things. Again, this is just the beginning. This is the third time 
we have come to the Senate for an extension, and we run into this 
filibuster, this stonewall. The New York Times says it is silly. It is 
silly.
  The Washington Post says just because Democrats want to bring this to 
an end does not mean it will end. The people are entitled to the facts.
  We have offered a compromise and I think it is reasonable--4 months, 
an extension for 4 months for the public hearings. This proposal would 
give us an opportunity to do our job, and that is to get all the facts 
and to present them to the people as best we can. We may not be able to 
get all of them, but at least we can do the best we can.
  Finally, this was an undertaking that was voted overwhelmingly, 96 to 
3. To attempt to turn this, now, into a political witch hunt, which is 
how it has been characterized, is wrong and it is improper. We have not 
been able to complete our work because there has been a conscious 
effort to shield the facts from the committee and the American people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion to invoke 
cloture on the motion to proceed to S. Res. 227.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to S. Res. 227 regarding the Whitewater extension.
         Alfonse D'Amato, Trent Lott, C.S. Bond, Fred Thompson, 
           Slade Gorton, Don Nickles, Paul Coverdell, Spencer 
           Abraham, Chuck Grassley, Conrad Burns, Rod Grams, 
           Richard G. Lugar, Mike DeWine, Mark Hatfield, Orrin G. 
           Hatch, and Thad Cochran.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and the nays are ordered under rule XXII.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] and the 
Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] is 
absent on official business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 34 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bennett
     Dole
     Moynihan
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ayes are 51, the nays are 46. Three-fifths 
of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, thank you very much.

                          ____________________