[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.
____________________