[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 92 (Thursday, June 20, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6682-H6683]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       THE FILEGATE INVESTIGATION

  (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, all Americans should note with pride the 
fact that the Olympic torch passes through Washington today on its way 
to Atlanta, GA, but we should issue this warning both to the 
International Olympic Committee and the U.S. Olympic Committee: 
``Whatever you do with that torch, please don't stop at the White 
House.'' Chances are the torch would get lost and we would not see it 
for 2\1/2\ years. But I am sure that would be just an honest 
bureaucratic snafu.
  Mr. Speaker, in all sincerity, this morning I respectfully request 
that we include in the Record the lead editorial in today's Washington 
Times entitled ``The Filegate Investigation.'' If we include that in 
the Record, we will come to the conclusion that all sober and fair-
minded Americans should share, that with all due respect to the FBI, 
letting the FBI conduct its own investigation into the Filegate matter 
would be like letting the fox guard the henhouse. An independent 
counsel is needed to get to the truth on this subject.

                       The Filegate Investigation

       Now that Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr has 
     determined he lacks jurisdiction to investigate White House 
     abuse of FBI background files on more than 400 Reagan and 
     Bush appointees, Attorney General Janet Reno is planning to 
     turn over the investigation to the FBI itself. That is less 
     than a satisfactory solution--to put it mildly.
       This unprecedented and ``egregious''--as FBI Director Louis 
     Freeh describes it--violation of the Privacy Act could not, 
     after all, have happened without FBI cooperation. And this is 
     not the first time that that agency has overstepped the 
     bounds of propriety, if not legality, in its willingness to 
     cooperate with the Clinton White House. Senior FBI officials 
     allowed themselves to be browbeaten by White House staffers 
     into getting involved in constructing the Clintons' cover 
     story for the summary firing of seven travel office employees 
     in May, 1993. And now it turns out that for months 
     afterwards, without batting an eye, they were merrily 
     handling over hundreds of confidential files the White House 
     had no business getting its hands on.
       The White House responded to the initial revelations of 
     these privacy violations with typical disingenuousness. While 
     acknowledging it should never have happened, Clinton 
     spokesmen laid it all at the feet of a low-level clerk, who 
     had no idea who did or did not still need White House access 
     and was using an outdated Secret Service list--and an order 
     form stamped with then-White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum's 
     name. The Secret Service quickly jumped into the fray with 
     the news that their lists of employees are constantly 
     updated, and that active and inactive passholders are very 
     clearly designated--in short, that there is no such thing as 
     an out-dated Secret Service list.
       That hardly mattered in any case, once it also became known 
     that the clerk, civilian Army investigator Anthony Marceca, 
     was actually a longtime Democratic hack, who'd been brought 
     on board by and was working under the direction of another 
     veteran Democratic operative, Craig Livingstone, who worked 
     for then-Associate Counsel, Rose Law Firm partner and Clinton 
     crony William H. Kennedy III. All three had every reason to 
     know perfectly well that they didn't need

[[Page H6683]]

     background files on, say, former Secretary of State James 
     Baker.
       None of this painful truth has stopped the White House's 
     spin machine from continuing to maintain with a straight face 
     that the illegal intrusion into confidential files by Clinton 
     employees was nothing more than a ``bureaucratic snafu.'' Nor 
     has it interfered with Democrats' unblushing assertions 
     (which will ring a bell with anyone who followed the Senate 
     Whitewater investigations) that any further questions about 
     this scandalous act--and particularly the hearings that began 
     this week in the House Government Reform and Oversight 
     Committee (with more to follow soon on the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee), are ``politically motivated.''
       It's clear despite the PR, however, that the beleaguered 
     folks in the Clinton White House recognize they're in trouble 
     once again. The president and chief of staff have apologized, 
     albeit in classic Clinton style--without admitting to any 
     wrongdoing. Craig Livingstone, it was announced this week, 
     will be going on ``requested'' paid leave of absence. And 
     White House Counsel Jack Quinn has decreed that henceforth, 
     all security operations will be put under the control of 
     Charles Easley, a veteran career civil servant who was hired 
     during the Reagan administration.
       Admirably free of the Clintonian ethics plague as Mr. 
     Easley undoubtedly is, it's too late to get those 408 FBI 
     background files back in the toothpaste tube. More to the 
     point, his appointment only raises the question why someone 
     like him was not appointed in the first place--if the Clinton 
     administration really had no evil intentions.
       And honorable as Director Freeh may be, his agency is too 
     sullied by its part in the Privacy Act violation to carry out 
     a credible investigation. It is troubling, indeed, to say 
     this about yet another Clinton administration scandal, but if 
     anything ever called for the appointment of an independent 
     counsel, this does. Ms. Reno should not delay in seeking such 
     an appointment. Anything else will look too much like setting 
     the fox to guard the henhouse.

                          ____________________