[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 87 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6399-H6400]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     WHITE HOUSE FILE SCANDAL--THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE ANSWERS

  (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous 
material.)
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, there certainly is no deficit of delusion, 
distortion and desperation from these born-again budgeteers on the 
liberal side of the aisle, but, Mr. Speaker, I come here today to 
commend to everyone's attention the article that appears in this 
morning's Wall Street Journal headlined ``Inside the White House File 
Scandal'', which I submit for the Record:

        [From the Wall Street Journal, Thursday, June 13, 1996]

                  Inside the White House File Scandal

                          (By Gary W. Aldrich)

       I loved my career with the FBI and treasure my years as a 
     special agent. Of the many assignments I was privileged to 
     have over the course of a 26-year career, the highlight was 
     the five years, just prior to my 1995 retirement, I spent 
     assigned to the White House.
       For more than three decades the FBI, the Secret Service and 
     the White House Counsel's Office had worked as a team to 
     clear the hundreds of new staff members who come with each 
     new administration. This clearance process entailed a lengthy 
     FBI background investigation to document the good character 
     of every White House employee. It was a comprehensive and 
     effective security system, perfected by six presidents to 
     protect national security, the taxpayer and the White House 
     itself.


                           DEEPLY DISTRUBING

       But the things I saw in the last 2\1/2\ years of my tenure 
     deeply disturbed me. And the recent disclosures that the 
     Clinton White House requested, and the FBI provided, more 
     than 340 background investigations on previous 
     administrations; employees raise questions that pierce the 
     very heart of national security, and call into question the 
     relationship between the White House and FBI.
       Some presidents have made good use of the FBI background 
     investigations, and some to their regret have not. Never 
     before has any administration used background investigations 
     of another president's political staff. FBI employees knew it 
     would be wrong to give raw FBI flies on political opponents 
     to the other party. In fact, they knew it would be illegal, 
     each disclosure a violation of the federal Privacy Act.
       Why, then, did the Clinton administration request such 
     files, and why did the FBI provide them? The White House's 
     ``explanation''--that it was ``an honest bureaucratic 
     snafu''--is really too much for this FBI veteran to believe. 
     How does a unit at FBI headquarters copy and box for shipment 
     to the White House Counsel's Office more than 340 highly 
     confidential files, when the two FBI supervisors are both 
     lawyers? Do the White House and the FBI really expect us to 
     believe that the wholesale copying of hundreds of FBI files 
     wouldn't raise an eye brow? That the two FBI supervisors 
     didn't know who James Baker was? If the FBI supervisors 
     didn't know that hundreds of confidential files were going 
     out the door, they were so grossly negligent as to imperil 
     not only the civil rights of more than 340 individuals, but 
     also national security.
       In truth, I know that FBI management had plenty of warning 
     that elements of security and background investigations were 
     drastically wrong at the Clinton White House. As early as May 
     1993, Special Agent James Bourke, supervisor of the FBI 
     office responsible for background investigations, had come 
     under fire when, at the behest of the White House, he started 
     a criminal investigation of seven innocent men in the Travel 
     Office.
       Not publicly know until now were the constant warnings that 
     Mr. Bourke and other FBI management received from me and from 
     my partner, Dennis Sculimbrene (who would go on to testify 
     against his own agency and the White House as a defense 
     witness in the Billy Dale trial). Why are Mr. Bourke and the 
     good folks at the FBI just now finding serious reasons to 
     check on the legitimacy of the requests of this White House? 
     Documents exist that prove they have know about these 
     problems for years. Mr. Bourke declined to be interviewed for 
     this article, so one can only speculate as to why he ignored 
     the repeated warnings. It may be that, like any bureaucrat, 
     Mr. Bourke was simply trying to win favor from those he 
     thought could advance his career--in this case, officials at 
     the White House.
       These allegations are more serious than anything we have 
     seen in decades. So how can the White House, through Attorney 
     General Janet Reno, be allowed to order the FBI to 
     investigate itself? No federal bureaucracy is good at 
     conducting an internal probe that has this kind of potential 
     for explosive political revelation.
       Right up to the time I retired in June 1995, Mr. Bourke and 
     other FBI supervisors responsible for background 
     investigations continued to honor each and every outrageous 
     request the Clinton White House Counsel's Office made, Mr. 
     Bourke cannot claim he did not know these requests were 
     improper. He was well aware the Clinton administration had 
     relaxed the security system at the White House so that those 
     loyal to the administration could evade background checks. 
     Other agents and I had told him so, and scores of documents 
     gong across his desk provided more evidence, just in case he 
     did not believe his own agents. In fact, at the time the 
     White House requested the files on previous administrations' 
     appointees--one full year into the Clinton administration--
     more than 100 Clinton staffers, including then Press 
     Secretary Dee Dee Myers, still had not been investigated by 
     the FBI for passes or clearances.
       Yet the Clinton's White House Counsel's office apparently 
     was wasting no time looking deeply into the background of any 
     one who was not lucky enough to have been hired by President 
     Clinton. As Mr. Bourke also knew, permanent White House 
     employees whose loyalty to the Clintons was in question were 
     in for some ``special'' attention, Hillary Clinton style. For 
     example, permanent employees in the White House residence who 
     were suspected of being disloyal to the first lady were 
     reinvestigated out of sequence, that is, early--in some cases 
     four years before their periodic review was due.
       Some of these staff members, appointed by Presidents 
     Carter, Reagan or Bush, had just been cleared by the FBI. 
     When I attempted to head off what appeared to be unnecessary 
     and premature investigations by offering to obtain copies of 
     the background investigations, my superiors at the FBI and 
     Craig Livingstone, director of security for the White House 
     Counsel's Office, effectively told me to mind my own 
     business. What prompted the White House to investigate these 
     staffers was a story, leaked to the press, that Mrs. Clinton 
     had thrown a lamp at the president during a domestic 
     argument. The Clintons had to know who the leader was. 
     Result: Decent, loyal, law abiding citizens with spotless 
     records were investigated by the FBI again, just to make 
     sure. I believe that these permanent employees were being 
     harassed and that if anything, anything at all, had turned up 
     in a new FBI probe, they would have been summarily tossed out 
     the door to ``make slots'' for the Clintons' people. And 
     indeed, other employees besides Billy Dale were fired on the 
     basis of these investigations.
       At the same time, the White House was requesting copies of 
     FBI investigations of hundreds of long-gone Reagan and Bush 
     staffers. Why? Knowing that the Clintons casually used the 
     FBI to weed out politically suspect employees, would it be so 
     unreasonable to suspect them of also misusing the FBI to 
     investigate political ``enemies''? Statements by Clinton 
     spokesmen that nobody looked at these FBI files are as 
     plausible as saying that if 340 Playboy magazines were sent 
     to a boys' high school, they would remain in their boxes, 
     unmolested.


                           bedroom-size safe

       The safe where these secret records were allegedly kept was 
     the size of a small bedroom. Maybe the files were taken out 
     of the

[[Page H6400]]

     safe, and maybe they weren't. There was no need to take them 
     out to examine them. Anyone--including Mr. Livingstone, whose 
     desk was just outside the entrance to the safe--could have 
     walked in, sat down at the table and perused the files to his 
     heart's content. And the security office was equipped with a 
     photocopy machine. I knew Mr. Livingstone as a fierce 
     defender of the Clintons, especially Mrs. Clinton, who 
     handpicked him for this sensitive position.
       Which of these files were copied, and where were the copies 
     sent? The time has come for real explanations, real 
     investigations of the Clinton White House Counsel's Office 
     and, sadly, maybe even of the FBI. In particular, Mr. Bourke 
     and Mr. Livingstone should explain their roles. These FBI 
     files could not have been requested, received and maintained 
     without Mr. Livingstone's full knowledge, consent and 
     direction. Mr. Bourke is responsible for protecting the FBI 
     files and for ensuring the FBI's arm's-length relationship 
     with this or any administration.
       These two men should be brought before both a federal grand 
     jury and Congress to account for this highly irregular 
     conduct--conduct that has embarrassed the presidency and the 
     FBI, undermined the public's trust in both institutions and 
     potentially violated federal law. The Clinton administration 
     has earned it reputation. But the FBI--my FBI--deserves 
     better. Enough is enough.

  Listen to what Gary Aldrich, a former FBI official, writes: ``Never 
before has any administration used background investigations of another 
President's political staff.'' How does a unit at FBI headquarters copy 
and box for shipment to the White House counsel's office more than 340 
highly confidential files when the two FBI supervisors are both 
lawyers? Do the White House and the FBI really expect us to believe 
that the wholesale copying of hundreds of FBI files would not raise an 
eyebrow?
  Oh, it raises more than an eyebrow, it raises serious questions. The 
American people deserve answers. This House will find those answers.

                          ____________________