[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.
____________________