[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11229-S11230]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           WHITEWATER PARDONS

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise to speak on what I consider a 
travesty that I believe to be imminent. Mr. President, yesterday a 
number of newspapers reported that President Clinton refused to rule 
out a pardon for his Whitewater business partners James and Susan 
McDougal and former Gov. Jim Guy Tucker. He would not rule it out, and, 
Mr. President, I believe that he has ruled it in.
  The President said that such pardons would be handled in a routine 
fashion. I do not see how he can think about handling the McDougals and 
Governor Tucker in a routine fashion. That is absurd.
  His statements should serve as a warning to voters of what to expect 
after the election. It is very possible that there will be pardons for 
all those involved in Whitewater, and the significance of this outrage 
should not be lost on the public. The President was sending a strong 
message to the McDougals and their friends. Susan McDougal is in jail 
for contempt of court because she refuses to answer legitimate 
questions before a duly constituted Federal grand jury that is 
attempting to investigate Whitewater. Her defiance is a challenge to 
the foundation of our judicial system, and, Mr. President, her attempt 
to politicize her criminal convictions, handed down by a jury of fellow 
Arkansans, is outrageous.
  She clearly got the message yesterday, however, when she read the 
headlines. Essentially, the message was, ``Hang in Susan. The cavalry 
is coming. Don't break down and cooperate. The pardon is on the way 
after the election.''
  The same message went to her former husband, Jim McDougal. He is 
facing 84 years in prison for his conviction last May, and he is 
supposedly cooperating with the Independent Counsel in an attempt to 
reduce his prison sentence. Nonetheless, the President comes forth and 
says, ``Jim, I'm raising the bid. I am offering a better deal. Don't 
cooperate with the prosecutors and I will reduce your sentence to 
nothing because I will pardon you even before you start serving time.''
  How can the prosecutor attempt to compete with a complete pardon from 
the President? The message also went out to Jim Guy Tucker. Now, Mr. 
Tucker received a light sentence that included no jail time, but he 
potentially faces other charges that Mr. Starr could bring. In exchange 
for dropping those charges, Mr. Tucker could cooperate more fully than 
he has. But now he has gotten the President's message: Hold tight, sit 
still, the election will be over in November and win, lose, or draw, 
you will be pardoned.
  Mr. President, I would remind people that 12 fellow Arkansans 
convicted the McDougals and Jim Guy Tucker. They were convicted of 
misusing taxpayers' money. Mrs. McDougal used a $300,000 Government 
loan intended for disadvantaged people to increase her real estate 
holdings and to redecorate her home. Who is going to pay for the 
$300,000 loss? The hard-working taxpayers in this country. The 
McDougals ran a savings and loan into the ground and into bankruptcy. 
That cost the American taxpayers $68 million. Today, on the Senate 
floor, we will very likely consider legislation to address the problems 
of funding the savings and loan crisis. It is still with us. Banks and 
savings and loans that had nothing to do with creating the crisis are 
going to be taxed to pay billions of dollars more to help end this and 
solve the problem.
  You can rest assured that there are job losses in this country, and 
many of them, because of the billions that the banking industry will 
have to pay back to further solve the savings and loan crisis. But I 
have not heard anybody complaining about the job losses. Yet, you see a 
nightly sympathetic portrayal of the position of Susan McDougal, who 
contributed to the losses significantly, and about the plight of her 
life now that she has been caught and convicted.

  Mr. President, I hope the American people would not be fooled by 
President Clinton's action. I can only conclude, and I do not think 
anybody can conclude otherwise, that he intends a full pardon, which 
would amount to a full-blown coverup of Whitewater, between November 
and his exit from the Presidency, in January. He just needs to keep 
everyone tight-lipped until the November election and then he will 
eliminate Whitewater as an issue altogether.
  Can you imagine what would have happened, how changed things would 
have been, if Richard Nixon had been so bold? What if he had simply 
pardoned all Watergate burglars immediately after his election? If he 
had, Watergate would not be in the vernacular of politics today and he 
never would have been forced into a resignation.
  Mr. President, the American people need to be forewarned and alerted. 
If reelected, or not reelected, I believe that Bill Clinton has every 
intention of pardoning his friends in the Whitewater case. What does 
this say about his supposed innocence in the affair?
  Many people would like to suggest that Whitewater is not a story, 
that it is old news, that it has no relevance for today. They are 
wrong. Today's headlines, ``Whitewater Pardons Possible'' speaks 
volumes about this administration and its integrity. This can be 
applied to a whole host of issues that have come before this 
administration, and it is a good glimpse into how Mr. Clinton would 
conduct the Presidency if he were to be elected for 4 more years.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from 
Nevada

[[Page S11230]]

has 15 minutes under a unanimous consent as agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feingold be allowed to 
speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do not believe I will object but I would 
like, for clarification purposes--I intended to speak right after the 
Senator from Nevada. Would the 10 minutes be included as part of his 15 
minutes?
  Mr. REID. No. The unanimous consent was to give him 10 minutes. I did 
not say when it would be, but it would be as in morning business.
  Mr. INHOFE. I would not object if I would be allowed to speak for 5 
minutes prior to that.
  Mr. REID. I ask that be part of the unanimous-consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________