[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 39 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2408-S2411]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 THE VOID IN MORAL LEADERSHIP--PART II

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, yesterday, I spoke about the void in 
moral leadership in the White House.
  I felt obliged, as Teddy Roosevelt said, to speak the truth about the 
President.
  Let me quote him once more.
  Some of my colleagues may not have heard me yesterday.
  He said it is absolutely necessary that we have full liberty to tell 
the truth about the President and 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 anyone else.

  I quoted yesterday from another great President, also named 
Roosevelt. Franklin D. Roosevelt. He 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.

  That is why it is important to reflect on this issue.
  I speak about the moral leadership issue because I believe it is 
critical.
  Because it is lacking.
  I make a distinction between leadership and moral leadership.
  Leadership means the capacity for exercising responsible authority.
  There are many in this body who are outstanding leaders.
  This is reflected in the many important laws we write for the Nation.
  Moral leadership is different.
  Moral leadership means we do not just pass laws for the rest of the 
Nation, and exempt ourselves.
  It means we pass laws and we apply them to ourselves, as well.
  We set the example.
  We say one thing, and we do it, too.
  That is what I mean by moral leadership.
  This Congress, for example, in one of its very first deeds, passed 
the Congressional Accountability Act.

[[Page S2409]]

  In doing so, for the very first time we applied the laws to ourselves 
that we passed for the rest of the country.
  That is moral leadership, Madam President.
  That is setting an example.
  It says, ``Watch what we do, not just what we say.''
  It is not often that Congress is able to exhibit moral leadership.
  We do things more by consensus and compromise.
  The reality of Congress is, we usually do things ugly.
  Foreigners always have the best observations about our form of 
government. de Tocqueville, of course, is the most famous example.
  But a Russian visitor, Boris Marshalov, once observed, ``Congress is 
so strange. A man gets up to speak and says nothing. Nobody listens--
and then everybody disagrees.
  Madam President, that's precisely why leadership from the White House 
is so important.
  The individuality of the President is required to provide the moral 
leadership for the Nation that Congress, as a body, cannot.
  The country desperately needs it.
  That is what Franklin Roosevelt was talking about.
  Yesterday, I talked about why the White House has covered up all its 
non-legal activities, on both Whitewater and Travelgate.
  It is because the activity of those in the White House conflicts with 
their projected image.
  In the words of syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, it is 
``political duplicity * * * The offense is hypocrisy of a high order. 
Having posed as our moral betters, they had to cover up. At stake is 
their image.''
  Yesterday, I referred to and quoted from the new book by James B. 
Stewart, ``Blood Sport.''
  The book reveals much about the Clintons to which Mr. Krauthammer 
alluded. Mr. Stewart raises several questions about the Clintons.
  One is about their willingness to abide by the same standards that 
everyone else has to meet. A second is about whether they abide by 
financial requirements in obtaining mortgage loans. A third is whether 
they should have accepted favors from people who were regulated by the 
State of Arkansas.
  Last week, Mr. Stewart was interviewed by Ted Koppel on 
``Nightline.'' In that interview, Mr. Stewart calls this a story about: 
``the Arrogance of Power, what people think they can do/and get away 
with/as an elected official, then how candid and honest they are when 
questioned about it.''
  He offers an illustration. It is a quote from the First Lady. She was 
advised by White House staff to disclose everything rather than 
stonewall. Let the Sun shine in, they said. But the First Lady rejected 
that advice. She said, according to Mr. Stewart, ``Well, you know, I'm 
not going to have people poring over our documents. After all, we're 
the President.''
  Madam President, I will put the entire interview of Mr. Stewart by 
Mr. Koppel into the Record.
  That way, the Record will reflect the full context of Mr. Stewart's 
words, so that I am not accused of misleading the American people.
  But Mr. Stewart's observations, as well as those of Mr. Krauthammer, 
heighten the public's awareness of a moral leadership void in the White 
House.
  So I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the 
interview of Mr. Stewart by Mr. Koppel.
  There being no objection, the interview was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From ``Nightline'' Mar. 11, 1996]

       Ted Koppel [voice-over]. The Whitewater controversy, 
     accusations made and denied.
       James Stewart [Author, ``Blood Sport'']. Mrs. Clinton, 
     essentially, took singlehandedly the control of this 
     investment.
       Hillary Clinton. We saw no records, we saw no documents.
       Ted Koppel [voice-over]. New questions about the Clintons' 
     credibility.
       James Stewart. I think the death of Vincent Foster is the 
     pivotal event in this story.
       Hillary Clinton. There were no documents taken out of Vince 
     Foster's office on the night he died.
       President Bill Clinton. An allegation comes up, and we 
     answer it, and then people say, ``Well, here's another 
     allegation. Answer this.''
       James Stewart. The President practically screamed over the 
     phone. He said, ``I can't take this anymore. I'm here in 
     Europe and they're asking me about Whitewater.''
       Ted Koppel [voice-over]. Now, the picture may become a 
     little clearer. Tonight, new details about Whitewater, Vince 
     Foster and damage control.
       Announcer. This is ABC News Nightline. Reporting from 
     Washington, Ted Koppel.
       Ted Koppel. This program may be the first you've heard 
     about ``Blood Sport,'' a new book which becomes available 
     later this week, but it will not be the last. To begin with, 
     you need to know how and why the book came about. The idea 
     appears to have originated with Hillary Clinton. In any 
     event, it was her close friend, Susan Thomases, herself a 
     lawyer, who approached the author, Jim Stewart, and suggested 
     that those closest to the First Family and, indeed, the 
     President and the First Lady themselves, would be willing to 
     cooperate with an objective, outside-the-Beltway writer on a 
     detailed, no-holds-barred Whitewater book.
       Stewart, a lawyer and former page one editor of the Wall 
     Street Journal, had impeccable credentials. He had shared in 
     a 1988 Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on insider trading. 
     In 1991, he published the book ``Den of Thieves,'' about 
     financial fraud in the 1980's. Stewart took up the offer and 
     even had one lengthy meeting with Mrs. Clinton at the White 
     House, but the promised cooperation never materialized, 
     although a number of people close to the Clintons did 
     ultimately talk. Stewart went ahead and wrote the book 
     anyway. Jim Stewart is a meticulous writer, which is another 
     way of saying that there are few blaring headlines, but 
     dozens of troubling revelations.
       To understand what Jim Stewart has done, you need to 
     refresh your memory on what the Clintons have variously 
     claimed and insisted. The Clintons have insisted, for 
     example, that they were only passive investors in Whitewater, 
     and had virtually nothing to do with it themselves.
       Hillary Clinton. We gave whatever money we were requested 
     to give by Jim McDougal. I mean, he was the one who would 
     say, ``Here's what you owe on interest, here's what your 
     contributions should be.'' We did whatever he asked us. We 
     saw no records, we saw no documents.
       Ted Koppel. The Clintons insist that they have fully 
     cooperated with the investigation of Whitewater, but that 
     they have been dogged by one unproved allegation after 
     another.
       President Bill Clinton. That's really the story of this for 
     the last four years. An allegation comes up and we answer it, 
     and the people say, ``Well, here's another allegation. Answer 
     this.'' And then, ``Here's another allegation. Answer this.'' 
     That is the way we are--we're living here in Washington 
     today.
       Ted Koppel. And only a couple of weeks ago, after the FDIC 
     released a report prepared by Jay Stevens, a former 
     Republican U.S. attorney not known to be friendly toward the 
     Clintons, there was this.
       Mark Fabiani [Associate White House Counsel]. This report 
     blows out of the water the allegations that have been made 
     about the First Lady and the Rose Law Firm, and it undermines 
     the contention of those who would extend these Whitewater 
     hearings endlessly on into the future.
       Ted Koppel. That may be as good a place as any to introduce 
     Jim Stewart, the author of ``Blood Sport,'' in his first 
     television interview on the book, and let me have you respond 
     right away, because the White House is obviously very proud 
     of the fact that Jay Stevens, Republican, no friend of the 
     Clintons, supervised a report by the FDIC which, in effect, 
     according to the White House, found the Clintons blameless in 
     the--in the Whitewater affair. Is that an overstatement?
       James Stewart [Author, ``Blood Sport'']. Well, I think the 
     White House reaction is misplaced optimism. The report is 
     good news, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far. It 
     explicitly says that it's not the definitive report on many 
     of the questions that have arisen here, and there is still an 
     independent counsel investigating all of these and even more 
     allegations. As long as the independent counsel investigation 
     continues, a real threat hovers over this President.
       Ted Koppel. Why or how do you explain the fact that Jay 
     Stevens, who, as I say, has no particular love for the 
     Clintons, why would he end an investigation if, as you say, 
     it's incomplete?
       James Stewart. He was retained to investigate the narrow 
     question of whether the government should sue the Clintons or 
     others to regain losses from Madison Guaranty, and he 
     concluded there was no evidence to warrant a suit against the 
     Clintons or the Rose Law Firm to do that, and I think that's 
     the right conclusion. I do not conclude that Madison Guaranty 
     losses flowed to the Clintons.
       Ted Koppel. What then, do you conclude, that--I mean, try 
     and give it to me in a broad sense. What is it that you would 
     say if you were obliged, in 15 or 30 seconds, to summarize 
     what is troublesome about Whitewater and what will still come 
     back to haunt the Clintons?
       James Stewart. Well, I think the Whitewater investment and 
     the story of that is important because it shows many things 
     about the Clintons. It shows their willingness to hold 
     themselves to the standards that everyone else has to meet. 
     It shows their willingness to abide by financial requirements 
     in obtaining mortgage loans. But I think, most of all, it 
     shows their willingness, while in Arkansas, to accept the 
     favors of people who were regulated by the state.

[[Page S2410]]

       Their attitude to this, which bordered on the negligent in 
     the beginning, clearly indicated a mindset which said, 
     ``Somebody else will take care of us because of our power as 
     highly elected officials in the state of Arkansas.''
       Ted Koppel. In a sense, Jim, that's a negative way of 
     saying the same thing we heard Mrs. Clinton say at the 
     beginning of this broadcast. In other words, let somebody 
     else take care of this. She put, in a more positive sense, 
     i.e., ``We had nothing to do with this. If Jim McDougal came 
     and said, `You owe so-and-so-much in interest,' we paid it, 
     but we never saw documents, we never had an active role in 
     this Whitewater affair.'' To which you would say what?
       James Stewart. Well, that simply isn't true. I think it may 
     have been true in the very beginning of the investment, when 
     there were still high hopes that this would make money and 
     the McDougals could handle everything, but by 1986, when the 
     McDougal empire was crumbling, it was not true. At that 
     point, Mrs. Clinton essentially took, singlehandedly, the 
     control of this investment. She was the one who negotiated 
     the loan renewals with the bank that held the mortgage. She 
     was the one who handled all the correspondence. She was the 
     one who went over all the numbers. She had possession of all 
     the records.
       Ted Koppel. It is your contention that she vastly inflated 
     the value of the Clintons' interest in Whitewater.
       James Stewart. That's correct.
       Ted Koppel. Correct?
       James Stewart. As I'm sure anybody who has ever applied for 
     a mortgage knows, you have to disclose your assets in such a 
     financial disclosure statement, and there are warnings on 
     these forms to be honest about this, to be accurate, to be 
     careful, not to use uncertain judgments, because to inflate 
     that can be a federal crime. And yet Mrs. Clinton valued 
     Whitewater at $100,000 on a 1987 financial disclosure 
     document, right after the bank itself had visited the 
     property and concluded the most generous estimate for their 
     half-interest would be $52,000.
       Ted Koppel. So when you're talking about a $100,000 
     evaluation, you're not talking about the value of the whole 
     property, but the Clinton's half-interest?
       James Stewart. They valued their half-interest at $100,000.
       Ted Koppel. I ask you this question advisedly, reminding 
     our viewers that you have some experience as a lawyer. Is 
     that a crime?
       James Stewart. It is a crime to submit a false financial 
     document. In fact, their partners, the McDougals, are on 
     trial in Little Rock this week for having submitted false 
     financial documents to financial institutions. But to prove a 
     case like that, a prosecutor would have to prove that it was 
     knowingly a false submission. We haven't heard an explanation 
     from either Mrs. Clinton or the President about that 
     document, and that ultimately would be a question for a 
     prosecutor and a jury to decide.
       Ted Koppel. I bring you back, Jim, to what we heard the 
     President say just a few moments ago, again, at the top of 
     this broadcast, sort of this--this cry of ``What in heaven's 
     name are we supposed to do? Somebody makes an allegation, we 
     respond to the allegation. Somebody makes a new allegation, 
     we respond to that allegation.'' This sounds like another one 
     of those allegations. How do you respond to--to what the 
     President is saying?
       James Stewart. Well, I don't think these allegations would 
     be coming out, or the revelations, in this kind of slow, 
     drip-by-drip process, if the White House and the Clintons had 
     been forthright from the beginning, when this first surfaced 
     in the campaign. Get the story out. They came to me, or they 
     sent someone to me, allegedly because they wanted to get the 
     whole story out, and they had been advised at the time--and I 
     told them the same thing--that to stop these inquiries, get 
     in front of the story. Tell us what happened, and don't leave 
     holes in the story. Be complete. Err on the side of 
     completeness, and if people are bored, they can ignore it. 
     But that has never been the strategy they have employed.
       Ted Koppel. Let's take a short break, Jim. When--we come 
     back, we will talk about what Vince Foster knew about 
     Whitewater and a number of other subjects.
       [Commercial break.]
       Ted Koppel. And back once again with Jim Stewart.
       You begin with the suicide of Vince Foster, and clearly 
     believe that his suicide is pivotal to understanding 
     everything that's happened to the Clintons in--in subsequent 
     months and years. Have you reached any conclusion as to why 
     he committed suicide?
       James Stewart. Well, first of all, there was the things 
     [sic] he enumerated in--in the note that he wrote, and I 
     think foremost among those was probably his concern about the 
     handling of the firing of employees in the travel office, but 
     what I think I can contribute that's new is that there were 
     things bothering him that were so serious he didn't dare 
     write them in his note, he didn't confide them to his wife. 
     He was worried about his marriage. He was very much enmeshed 
     in what we now know as Whitewater, and he knew of things that 
     hadn't come to light that could prove embarrassing. He was 
     concerned about the deterioration of his relationship with 
     the First Lady, and I think there's a good chance he knew of 
     the problems that Webster Hubbell was about to face, given 
     his handling of clients in the Rose firm.
       Ted Koppel. When you talk about Web Hubbell, I should point 
     out, first of all, Vince Foster, Hillary Clinton, Web Hubbell 
     had all been partners at the--at the Rose Law Firm together. 
     Web Hubbell then came with the Clintons to Washington, was 
     briefly the assistant attorney general of the United States, 
     and you write that in the months before Vince Foster 
     committed suicide, that he went over to Web Hubbell's house 
     and went down in the basement to look at what?
       James Steward. Well, there were files in Web Hubbell's 
     basement that had been removed from the Rose Law Firm during 
     the campaign by Web Hubbell and Vince Foster. Web and Vince, 
     during the campaign, went through the Rose Firm and removed 
     anything that they thought might be controversial or create 
     problems for the campaign, and this including many of the 
     billing records relating to Hillary Clinton's work for 
     Madison Guaranty and other matters. And one day Vince Foster 
     went over and he and Web Hubbell got into the basement, they 
     went to the boxes, and they went through those materials 
     looking for these particular files, which they did get and 
     turn over to the First Lady. But also in those files were 
     all of this other material, including a lot of the 
     Whitewater material, bank records from Whitewater, and the 
     billing records, as I mentioned before.
       Ted Koppel. Is it--is it your impression that Vince Foster 
     then took those billing records to the White House, to his 
     office?
       James Stewart. It's certainly a possibility. I don't know 
     for sure, and nobody's said they recalled him taking 
     documents out of the basement. But those documents in the 
     basement were later all turned over to the Williams and 
     Connolly firm after they learned that Web Hubbell had all 
     these documents, and they supposedly turned all those 
     documents over to Congress. So these records did not surface 
     there. So that suggests to me that somehow, between their 
     first being removed from the Rose firm to their being 
     discovered, they were in Vince Foster's office.
       Ted Koppel. Talk to me for a moment about--about 
     Travelgate, but first of all, let's take a look at something 
     the First Lady said, I believe in her interview with Barbara 
     Walters, about the whole Travelgate affair.
       Hillary Clinton [``20/20'']. I think that everyone who knew 
     about it was quite concerned, and wanted it to be taken care 
     of, but I did not make the decisions, I did not direct anyone 
     to make the decisions, but I have absolutely no doubt that I 
     did express concern, because I was concerned about any kind 
     of financial mismanagement.
       Ted Koppel. Mrs. Clinton presents herself in that interview 
     as exercising a sort of passive role. ``Yes, I may have 
     expressed some concern about but I certainly didn't initiate 
     it.'' There is a memorandum by David Watkins, I believe. Tell 
     the story of that memorandum, because it, of course, suggests 
     something totally different, but the White House itself 
     ultimately produced that memorandum and made it available. 
     Why is that significant?
       James Stewart. Well, the facts, as I discovered, on the 
     travel office affair, are as follows. I learned, before the 
     production of this memo, that in fact, whatever her own 
     personal belief about this is, Mrs. Clinton was the first 
     person to suggest to David Watkins that these people be 
     replaced.
       Ted Koppel. David Watkins being?
       James Stewart. He was the head of management in the White 
     House and was the person in charge of personnel in the White 
     House, including the travel office.
       Ted Koppel. Right.
       James Stewart. She was the first one to say to him, ``We 
     need our people in this office.'' Did she literally say 
     ``Fire them''? No. But the implication seemed very clear to 
     him and to everyone else who spoke with her, and that's what 
     set in motion the chain of events that led to their being 
     fired.
       Ted Koppel. But the--the memorandum that David Watkins 
     wrote to his own file about all of this, and about falling on 
     his sword for the First Lady, is a memorandum that the White 
     House itself, after all, made available. Now, that certainly 
     puts them in a good light, doesn't it?
       James Stewart. Well, I don't think so. First of all, that 
     memorandum had been under subpoena for a considerable period 
     of time. The independent counsel, the predecessor to Kenneth 
     Starr, had subpoenaed that particular document. Meanwhile, I 
     think the White House was aware that all this information was 
     soon going to be made public. I have no idea how they found 
     it, when they did, or why they decided to--to make it public 
     when they did, but I do know that the week before that, I and 
     my fact checker were checking the details about the First 
     Lady's involvement in the travel office affair with the White 
     House press office, with people in the White House, and had 
     even faxed them material that dealt with this very subject, 
     and almost immediately after that the memo itself appeared.
       Ted Koppel. What you're suggesting, Jim, is that because 
     you indicated that something about this was going to be in 
     your book that they then decided to--to make it public before 
     it became public in your book?
       James Stewart. Well, as I said, I don't know why they did 
     it. All I can say is, I had all this information in the book, 
     we were fact-checking this information with the White House, 
     so the White House knew this information was going to be in 
     the book and shortly after that the memo appeared. But I'm 
     sure the White House will say that no, that had nothing to do 
     with it.

[[Page S2411]]

       Ted Koppel. Let's take another short break. An inside peek 
     at the White House damage control operation when we come 
     back.
       [Commercial break.]
       Ted Koppel. There was, Jim Stewart, considerable debate 
     going on within the White House, you discovered, about how 
     much to reveal, when to reveal it, how cooperative to be, and 
     at one point there is a--a line that I suspect is going to be 
     a rather devastating line that the First Lady uttered in 
     reference to all of this.
       James Stewart. Well, you're--you're right. The--there was 
     internal advice, especially from David Gergen, to turn 
     everything over, and this was seriously considered until the 
     First Lady interrupted at one point and said, ``Well, you 
     know, I'm not going to have people poring over our documents. 
     After all, we're the President,'' suggesting that, by virtue 
     of grandeur and power of the office, that they somehow should 
     not have to endure such an experience.
       Ted Koppel. The key questions, I think, ultimately may 
     become not so much what happened during Whitewater, but what 
     happened in more recent months, in terms of either covering 
     things up or not being as forthcoming with information. There 
     is one story that--that you uncover having to do with the 
     Paula Jones story, this is the young lady who charged sexual 
     harassment against then-Governor Clinton, and the--and the 
     Arkansas state troopers who were then guarding Mr. Clinton. 
     What is that all about?
       James Stewart. Well, I think it's well-known at this point 
     that the troopers surfaced with some accounts of their 
     experiences while in the security detail of the governor. 
     What I think hasn't gotten much attention is that before 
     these reports were published, and before the troopers 
     actually made the final decision to reveal what they claim to 
     know, there was pressure applied to them to try to get them 
     not to speak out, and I think the most significant example of 
     this came when the President of the United States himself 
     called one of these troopers and offered him a federal job. 
     That trooper subsequently decided not to participate. He was 
     not one of the troopers who subsequently did tell stories to 
     anyone, so if the goal of that job offer was to get this 
     trooper to remain silent, it worked.
       Ted Koppel. Is there not one trooper who, in fact, ended up 
     with a federal job?
       James Stewart. The head of the governor's security detail 
     did end up with a federal job, but the trooper who heard 
     directly from the president and decided not to participate 
     did not accept it. He said he didn't--didn't want one of 
     these jobs, he wanted to stay in Little Rock.
       Ted Koppel. Now, again, let me draw on some of your 
     experience as a lawyer. If, indeed, that could be--that could 
     be proved true, the charge that you--that you make in your 
     book, that would be a federal crime, would it not?
       James Stewart. Well, that, again, could be a federal crime. 
     I think the--the issue here is was a job offered explicitly 
     in exchange for something else?
       Ted Koppel. Let me ask you--and I realize this--this may be 
     the most difficult question I ask you of all--after having 
     written a book that is 400 pages-plus, how do you--how do you 
     reduce it to a conclusion as to culpability, lack of 
     culpability, whether this is a story that has just been 
     blown way out of proportion, whether it is simply being 
     kept alive for partisan reasons now and is--is doomed to 
     do so for the rest of this year because there is a 
     presidential election and because, you know, for the 
     Clintons, the unfortunate timing that your book is coming 
     out right now--how do you summarize everything you've 
     learned?
       James Stewart. Well, my interest is not partisan, and my 
     interest is not narrowly was a law broken. I think to sum up 
     the whole book is a study in the acquisition and wielding of 
     power, and in the end, it's a study of the arrogance of 
     power, what people think they can do and get away with as an 
     elected official, and then how candid and honest they are 
     when questioned about it. I think that is what it reveals, I 
     think, most significantly about the Clintons.
       Ted Koppel. And--and to those who say, has all of this 
     investigation, the congressional investigations, the 
     independent prosecutors, the time that you have spent in 
     putting this book together, you know, was the--was it all 
     worth all the money and the time and the effort and the pain?
       James Stewart. I think, in the end, we'll find that it was, 
     that the truth is important in our society, that justice is 
     important in our society. I don't think you can put a price 
     tag on those things. Yes, it's terribly expensive, and at 
     times it seems very wasteful, and at times it's nasty and 
     it's partisan. It often is a blood sport, as Vince Foster 
     said. But why is that? It's 'cause the truth was never 
     honored in the first place, and I hope if there's any lesson 
     that comes out of that, that people in the future will 
     recognize that.
       Ted Koppel. Jim Stewart, thank you.
       I'll be back in a moment.
       [Commercial break.]
       Ted Koppel. The controversy over ``Blood Sport'', this 
     book, will be the subject of a segment on ``Good Morning 
     America'' tomorrow.
       That's our report for tonight. I'm Ted Koppel in 
     Washington. For all of us here at ABC News, good night.

  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Wyoming.

                          ____________________