[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H11574-H11575]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   IF REELECTED, WILL THE PRESIDENT GRANT PARDONS TO THREE CONVICTED 
                CRIMINALS: HIS FORMER BUSINESS PARTNERS?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, this May, a Little Rock jury returned guilty 
verdicts on a total of 24 felony counts against President and Mrs. 
Clinton's business partners, James and Susan McDougal, and against his 
successor as Governor, Jim Guy Tucker.
  Earlier this week, many of us watched with great surprise as the 
President, on the news hour with Jim Lehrer, in a televised national 
broadcast, refused to rule out the possibility of pardons for these 
three Whitewater convicted criminals if he is reelected.

                              {time}  1945

  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I introduced a resolution 
that would declare that it is the sense of this House that President 
Clinton should specifically, categorically, and immediately disavow any 
intention to grant Presidential pardons for his former Whitewater 
business partners, or to former Governor Tucker.
  By passing this resolution before we leave this House, we send the 
right signal to the country that in this country no one is above the 
law and that convicted criminals do not walk free by virtue of having 
friends in high places.
  Mr. Speaker, the President's statement raising this issue on national 
TV was not the first time the President has held open the possibility 
of presidential pardons for Susan and James McDougal and for former 
Governor Tucker.
  About a month ago, in a televised interview on CNN, the President 
offered to use his considerable fund-raising abilities to raise money 
for these Whitewater defendants and for other individuals who had 
incurred legal expenses in connection with the Whitewater probe.
  He said that once he leaves office, whether that be in 1997 or 2001, 
he will dedicate himself to raising money on behalf of those whose 
activities are being investigated by the Whitewater independent 
counsel.
  Not surprisingly, the President's comments have been interpreted by 
many as a veiled promise to those implicated, convicted or otherwise, 
that if they will stand with the President, if they will stand tough 
this fall, that they will receive a pardon.
  The American people need to know, what is the President doing with 
promises of raising funds to pay their attorney's fees, and with 
indications that a pardon may be forthcoming. We are talking about an 
investigation that was started by the Whitewater independent counsel, 
who was appointed pursuant to the President's own Attorney General, 
Janet Reno.
  Ms. Reno charged the independent counsel to investigate violations of 
criminal law relating in any way to James McDougal, President William 
Jefferson Clinton, or Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton's relationship with 
Madison Guaranty Savings, or Whitewater Development, or Capital 
Management.
  The investigation has resulted in convictions. The investigation has 
shown that over $300,000 in taxpayers' money was stolen from the 
American people. This investigation has been at taxpayers' expense. For 
the President now to become directly involved and to hint that he may 
pardon those who directly benefit is nothing short of outrageous.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the American people are entitled to an 
answer before this election occurs. All we are asking for is an answer. 
Bill Clinton should not, nor should anyone, dance around and waffle on 
this important question. We need an answer directly from Bill Clinton; 
not from Mike McCurry, but from Bill Clinton.
  Mr. Speaker, I will read a statement of President Clinton, made when 
he was the Democratic candidate for Congress in Arkansas's Third 
District back in 1974, when President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon.
  Back in 1974, when President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, the 
Democratic candidate for Congress in Arkansas' 3rd District bitterly 
criticized the pardon, stating that it had ``undermined respect for law 
and order, prejudiced pending trials, and dealt another blow to that 
vast body of law-abiding Americans, whose faith in equal justice under 
the law has been shaken.'' In the intervening 22 years since he issued 
that stern pronouncement condemning the Nixon pardon, Bill Clinton's 
view of presidential pardons has apparently ``evolved.'' The 
President's refusal to rule out pardons for his personal friends and 
business associates found guilty on 24 felony counts by a jury of 12 
Arkansas citizens is another example of the hypocrisy and ``situational 
ethics'' that we have come to expect from this administration. It is 
absolutely incumbent upon this President to assure the American 
people--before the November 5 election--that he will not abuse the 
presidential pardon authority to let the guilty go free.
  Democratic Theme: All President Clinton has said is that pardon 
applications submitted by the McDougals or former Governor Tucker will 
be treated like any others would be, pursuant to procedures established 
by the Department of Justice for processing such applications. To 
categorically rule out pardons for the McDougals and Jim Guy Tucker at 
this time would be an injustice to them, denying them a right that 
other Americans have to petition the President for executive clemency.
  One need look no further than the lead editorial in this morning's 
Washington Post for a rebuttal to the specious suggestion that the 
President should feel free to treat pardon requests by his convicted 
Whitewater business partners as he would any other request for 
clemency. The Post writes as follows:

       These Whitewater cases are not like any other, because 
     those seeking pardons may have information bearing on Mr 
     Clinton himself or his wife. Before the election, Mr. Clinton 
     should make clear that, if reelected, he

[[Page H11575]]

     will not subvert the judicial process through attacks on the 
     special prosecutor or by abusing the president's pardon 
     power. That much should be obvious.

                          ____________________