[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 38 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S2322]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      THE VOID IN MORAL LEADERSHIP

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last week, a new book hit the stands 
titled ``Blood Sport.'' It is written by Mr. James B. Stewart.
  The book is an account of the Whitewater issue. Many of us have had 
trouble understanding the issue. Reading this book helps. It makes a 
complicated financial scandal read more like a story.
  Mr. Stewart was given access to sources by the White House. In part, 
it was because he is ideologically compatible with the Clintons. Those 
are Mr. Stewart's bona fides for the book he writes about the President 
and the First Lady.
  In his own words, Mr. Stewart paints the character of the first 
couple this way:

       [T]he Clintons themselves proved no different from their 
     recent predecessors in the White House, deeply enmeshed in a 
     Washington culture so accustomed to partisan distortion and 
     ``spin'' that truth is the most frightening prospect of all.

  Let me repeat that last phrase, Mr. President: `` * * * that truth is 
the most frightening prospect of all.''
  Mr. Stewart's observation seems to substantiate those of columnist 
Charles Krauthammer. On January 12, Mr. Krauthammer's column appeared 
in the Washington Post under the title, ``Why Whitewater Now?'' In it, 
he calls Whitewater ``a scandal that appears to be all coverup and no 
crime.'' He then asks the logical question: Why would there be a 
coverup if there's no crime? He asks the question of both Whitewater 
and Travelgate.
  Here is his conclusion: ``Because the vanity of the Clintons is not 
that they are merely law abiding * * * but that they are morally 
superior.''
  In Whitewater, the Clintons certainly are vulnerable. In October 
1991, bill Clinton said: ``Let's not forget that the most irresponsible 
people of all in the 1980s were * * * those who sold out our savings 
and loans with bogus deals.''
  Meanwhile, we now find that Mrs. Clinton drafted the option papers 
for Castle Grande on behalf of Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan. Federal 
regulators have called Castle Grande a sham operation. Isn't it fair, 
then, to lump the Clintons into the same category of, using Clinton's 
words, ``the most irresponsible people of all in the 1980s?''
  In Travelgate, the Clintons are once again vulnerable. Using Mr. 
Krauthammer's words, the ``morally superior'' Clintons, had an interest 
in covering up their nonillegal actions. After all, just how morally 
superior can one be when sacking seven innocent employees for a 
relative and a rich Hollywood crony, who, both, by the way, advised the 
action and stood to profit from it?
  And finally, there's Cattlegate. During the 1992 campaign, the 
Clintons railed against Wall Street's high rollers. We later learn that 
the First Lady's luck had turned $1,000 into $100,000. Once again, the 
target of the Clintons' railing might well have included the Clintons 
themselves.
  Mr. Krauthammer sums this all up in a phrase: ``Political 
duplicity.'' He says: ``[T]he offense is hypocrisy of a high order. 
Having posed as our moral betters, they had to cover up. At stake is 
their image * * * ''
  Mr. President, it is my view that there's a serious lack of moral 
leadership in the White House. By moral, I mean basic values such as 
honesty, trust, forthrightness. It is the quality most needed in the 
Presidency--in a President. The governed expect that their elected 
officials, their leaders, will be role models.
  Franklin Roosevelt is a more credible source than I on this point. He 
once said: ``The Presidency is not merely an administrative office * * 
* It is more than an engineering job * * * It is pre-eminently a place 
of moral leadership.''
  Clearly, FDR understood the importance of the First Family setting an 
exemplary standard for the governed.
  I feel obliged to share these observations, Mr. President. Having 
long been a student of politics and history, I adopted a view held by 
another Roosevelt--Teddy Roosevelt. He commented on how important it is 
to criticize the President when warranted:

       [I]t is absolutely necessary that there should be full 
     liberty to tell the truth about his acts * * * Any other 
     attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To 
     announce that there must be no criticism of the President * * 
     * is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally 
     treasonable to the American public * * * It is even more 
     important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about 
     him than about any one else.

  Mr. President, I feel the same obligation felt by Teddy Roosevelt--to 
tell the truth about the President. Pleasant or unpleasant. And the 
crucial issue is the same one proclaimed by Franklin Roosevelt--moral 
leadership.
  In my view, there is a void in this White House of moral leadership. 
As we approach a new era, a new millenium, and a new world, this is not 
desirable. How can we be leaders of the free world without strong 
leadership at home?
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________