Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H11584-H11590]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H11584]]

A CALL FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May
12, 1995, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time. I
will share my time with my friend and colleague from California, Mr.
Rohrabacher.
This is, if not the last night of this session of the 104th Congress,
it certainly is close to it. I should be rising to display a happy
sentiment about what has happened because I am proud of what we have
done in this Congress. I am proud of the work we have achieved. I am
proud that our party has moved forward with a very aggressive agenda.
But, unfortunately, I rise to talk about something that to me is very
sad, Mr. Speaker, because it gets at the heart of what this country is
all about, and it relates back to one of the reasons why I got involved
in public life in the first place.
In 1972, Mr. Speaker, I was teaching in public schools back in
Pennsylvania, and to be very frank, I was somewhat dismayed when the
investigation showed here in Washington that the President of my
party, Richard Nixon, tried to cover up a third-rate burglary.

Now, that was not a major felony, but it was something that no one in
fact should be allowed to get away with in this country, and in fact
the system worked. That gentleman who served in the White House
eventually had to step down because this body did a very thorough job
in supporting an independent prosecutor who went in and found out that,
yes, the President had in fact tried to cover up a third-rate burglary.
And that is exactly what it was, and that is all it was.
Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States right now is about my
age, a little bit older than I am. We are from the same generation. I
understand that his wife, the First Lady, was involved in that
investigation, was on the team who went after Richard Nixon, as a staff
person, an idealist of the sixties generation, as perhaps I would
characterize myself.
And here, Mr. Speaker, our paths now cross. I am a Republican Member
of Congress and President Clinton and his wife are in the White House.
And while I have been dismayed at many of the actions of this
administration and this President, a President of my generation,
nothing, Mr. Speaker, nothing has outraged me as much as what I have
seen over the past several days.
The Attorney General of this country suggested that we needed a
special prosecutor to investigate the Whitewater case. Whether you
believe the facts in that situation or not, in a bipartisan way we all
agree, like we did with those who were in office when Richard Nixon was
President, that this should best be handled by a special prosecutor.
The majority of the Members in both bodies agreed that that should be
handled, especially if it potentially involved the President and First
Lady, by a special prosecutor.
The special prosecutor has proceeded, Mr. Speaker, and he has gotten
some convictions along the way, in fact, some convictions of some
formerly very high ranking people in this administration. Now, Mr.
Speaker, 1 month before the election, the heat is starting to be turned
up on the White House.

{time} 2030

And what really offends me, Mr. Speaker, is that while we have an
investigation being conducted by an independent prosecutor, as we saw
during Richard Nixon's era, we have a President for the first time in
the history of this country come out and make public statements leading
to the possibility of pardon for those people who, first of all, have
been tried and convicted by a jury of their peers.
Now, for those who say, well, it is the right of the President to
pardon those who have done wrong, I would say I do not disagree with
that. But, Mr. Speaker, what we have here is something that has never
happened before in the history of this country, a sitting President
making public statements about a case where the investigator is trying
to bring in witnesses who have refused to testify, who have gone on
national television, who have been jailed because they have not
cooperated with the Grand Jury and the special prosecutor, and a
President who has said publicly that he has not yet thought about
whether or not a pardon would be considered.
Now, if you were one of those individuals who has been convicted by a
jury of your peers for wrongdoing, and in each of the cases of the
convictions they are for multiple counts, they are not for one count,
you would, I would think, be very enlightened and heartened by the
comments of the President of the United States that he thinks justice
should prevail.
But then he goes on to say he has not even thought about whether or
not a pardon should be considered. But even worse than that, Mr.
Speaker, he comes out publicly and says that it is commonly understood
that the special prosecutor is, in fact, pursuing politics in his
investigation of this situation.
Mr. Speaker, now I am not a lawyer. I am one of the few Members of
this Congress that got here as a public school teacher, as someone who
got involved in my community as a mayor and then county commissioner
and now as a Member of Congress. But let me tell you one thing I have
learned about our legal system, Mr. Speaker, and that is when you
attempt to affect someone who is involved as a witness or a potential
witness in a criminal investigation, for every citizen in America that
is called tampering with a witness. Mr. Speaker, as a layperson and not
an attorney, that is a felony far more grave than covering up a third-
rate burglary.
Mr. Speaker, if you or I or my fellow citizens back in Delaware
County or across Pennsylvania were being charged with something and had
some way of affecting a potential witness to that case against us, and
said that publicly and tried to influence what that individual may or
may not say, they could be charged with tampering with a witness.
Mr. Speaker, that is illegal. That is not allowed in this country.
And for the President of the United States to lay out the possibility
of a pardon for someone who was making herself to be a national folk
hero, after she was convicted by a jury of her peers for having done
wrong, along with her husband who was convicted of many more counts,
and who currently is in prison because she is saying she does not want
to cooperate, is tampering with a witness.
Mr. Speaker, that is outrageous, and that is why I got involved in
public life in the first place back in my county, back in the 1970's,
when I first ran for mayor of my town. I was upset with the way the
system was working. I was upset that a President could think that he
could be above the law and that he could cover up any third-rate
burglary and get away with it.
But President Nixon did not do that during the course of the
investigation. His crime was covering up. It was Gerald Ford, the next
President who, in fact, gave a pardon which caused him to be defeated.
Now, Mr. Speaker, some would say this is sour grapes, you are just a
Republican and all you want to do is beat up on the President because
it is so close to the election. Mr. Speaker, that is not my reason for
being here. In fact, let me read you some quotes that appeared in the
national media this past week in response to what this President has
done.
First of all, let me quote Richard Cohen. Richard Cohen is a
columnist for the Washington Post, and anyone who reads the Washington
Post knows that Richard Cohen is not exactly what you would call a
conservative columnist. In fact, he is thought to be rather to the left
in terms of his positions on issues.
Mr. Cohen, in an article this past week, likened Mr. Clinton's anti-
Starr campaign to the Watergate era when Richard Nixon fired his
nemesis, Archibald Cox.
This is the quote from Richard Cohen. ``Personal attacks on the
independent counsel or appeals to partisan chauvinism hardly reassure
me,'' Mr. Cohen wrote in a column this week. To go on and quote him
further, ``It seems to me I have heard this song before, in 1972 to be
exact.''
Now, this is not the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Curt Weldon,
Republican. This is not the gentleman from

[[Page H11585]]

Georgia, Newt Gingrich, Speaker. This is not the gentleman from New
York, Bill Paxon, chairman of the congressional committee, or even Bob
Dole, Republican candidate. This is Richard Cohen, columnist in the
Washington Post, likening the President's actions, Mr. Speaker, to
those of 1972 when Richard Nixon was, in fact, in office.
But let us go beyond Richard Cohen Mr. Speaker. How about the New
York Times? The New York Times is not exactly the Washington Times. It
is not known for its conservative principles, its conservative
thinking, or its conservative editorials. What did the New York Times
editorial page say this week in response to what this leader of our
country did in terms of his public statements in regard to the
Whitewater situation and Special Prosecutor Starr?
The Times blasted the President for his verbal shots at Mr. Starr
this past Monday during a PBS interview when the President was being
interviewed and for his discussion of the pardon process while ex-
Whatewater partner Susan McDougal refuse to testify before a Federal
Grand Jury. And this is what the New York Times said, Mr. Speaker.

``Both comments create the impression that it is the White House that
wants to use partisan thrusts to disrupt the legal process, not Mr.
Starr and others, who remain legitimately curious about the full story
of Whitewater.''
Again, Mr. Speaker, this was not Republicans in this body, this was
not Bob Dole or Jack Kemp. This was the New York Times in an editorial
this week, Mr. Speaker.
Let us go further, Mr. Speaker, and let us talk about Daniel Schorr.
Daniel Schorr, who covered Watergate for CBS News and now does
commentary on National Public Radio, said, ``The President's answers to
PBS anchor Jim Lehrer were designed to put Mr. Starr on the defensive
and keep McDougal hopeful. His game is to keep Starr on the defense. I
think he is having some success in doing that,'' said Mr. Schorr.
``What serves Clinton's purpose very well,'' and I am quoting him, ``is
to just leave open the possibility of a pardon,'' he said. ``It leaves
the defendants some incentive not to give away the Clintons.''
Which I think the President perhaps knows could happen. That is not
the quote, by the way, I am adding my own editorial comment. I will get
back to the quote.
``When you look at the words, you can't have a problem with it. It's
not what he said, it's what he didn't say.''
Mr. Speaker, this President is very clever sometimes at not
necessarily saying or conveying directly what he means, but using
whatever he says to convey some other meaning, and that is exactly what
Daniel Schorr is saying the President is doing in this particular
situation.
We could go on to the Wall Street Journal, and some would say, well,
the Wall Street Journal is more conservative, and I would agree with
that publicly, but I will still quote Paul Gigot, a Wall Street Journal
columnist, who said, and I quote, ``It sure wasn't appropriate.''
Continuing the quote, ``It seemed to me that he was holding out hope to
Susan McDougal about the prospect of a pardon, which is an interference
with the Starr investigation.''
Mr. Speaker, what we have seen happen in this country this past week
may not sway the election. It may not help or hurt this President in
his efforts to be reelected to a second term. But I can tell you one
thing, Mr. Speaker, as a child of the 1960's, close to this President's
age, as someone who got involved in public life because I was fed up
when I saw a sitting President try to cover up a third-rate burglary
and who was offended that he was from my party, so I got involved, that
I am outraged. I am incensed that this individual would think that he
has the ability to so blatantly in the public process leave the option
open for a pardon.
Mr. Speaker, when this happened this week, even though I am not on
the appropriate committees, I felt that I had to do something, and so I
did. I am here tonight, Mr. Speaker, to announce what I have done. I
drafted a letter, Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago. I would like to read the
letter which will go to this President tomorrow.
``Dear Mr. President. We are shocked and alarmed by several of your
recent statements about the ongoing investigation of independent
counsel, Kenneth Starr, and the possibility that several of the figures
involved in the Whitewater affair might receive Presidential pardons.
``Accordingly, we write to ask for your assistance with two very
specific issues. First, we ask for your assurance that Jim and Susan
McDougal, Jim Guy Tucker and other individuals associated with the
Whitewater affair will not receive presidential pardons of any sort.
This is particularly important in the case of Susan McDougal, who
remains in jail on contempt charges. Even the hint of a possible pardon
smacks of interference on your part in the important work of the
independent counsel. Leaving the door open for a pardon at some point
represents, as Richard Cohen in a recent Washington Post column
correctly observes, `a whisper of an offer,' of a pardon.
``Second, we request that you make public the evidence which supports
your contention that Susan McDougal is being held in jail on contempt
because she refuses to lie about the First Lady and you. This is an
extremely serious charge about the integrity of Kenneth Starr. If there
is even a grain of truth to support this charge, you should produce
that `evidence' immediately or withdraw your claim.
``These are issues of the gravest importance that speak directly to
the integrity of the independent counsel and the investigation he is
undertaking. We look forward to your response on these two critical
issues. Sincerely.''
Mr. Speaker, when I drafted the letter on Wednesday I thought I would
bring it over and get some of my friends who I thought would be
concerned about this to sign this letter with me, but I was prepared to
sign it myself.
Mr. Speaker, in 2 hours on the floor of this House, and I had not
talked and still have not talked to anyone in the leadership, including
the Speaker or the other leaders who are not involved and aware of what
I am doing, I was able to collect 185 signatures, from 185
representatives all across this country, from every State in this
Union. And that was in 2 hours yesterday and a half-hour on the floor
today. And during that time period, 185 elected officials, representing
almost one-half of the population of this Nation agree with me, Mr.
Speaker, that this has got to be stopped.
No one is above the law in America, even someone who can look in the
camera and with a straight face say that he will wait until the process
is over and that, in fact, it is political, without providing any bit
of evidence to support that claim.
Mr. Speaker, some would say, well, you are just a Republican and all
you got were those conservative Republicans to support you in signing
that letter. Mr. Speaker, I will admit the overwhelming majority of
these signatures are Republican.
I can tell you one month before an election it would be extremely
difficult to get any member of the President's party to sign a letter
of this type that basically confronts him directly and asks him to
respond.

{time} 2045

But, Mr. Speaker, it is a bipartisan letter. In fact, three Democrats
joined with us in saying to this President, put up or shut up. If you
have no evidence of political involvement on the part of the special
prosecutor, then shut your mouth. And stop going around the country
attempting to provide support for someone who has been convicted by her
peers and who sits in jail on contempt charges because you are fearful
that she might say something that will implicate you and your wife.
Mr. Speaker, 185 Members of this body signed this letter. The letter
is still open and my colleagues and our colleagues, I would hope, who
want to sign this letter can do so by calling my office this evening, I
will be there; as well as calling tomorrow, I will be in there again.
And I will let them sign the letter there or on the House floor,
because I think we have to make a statement, Mr. Speaker.
Back to my days in 1972, when I got involved because the leader of my
party tried to cover up a third-rate burglary, and now we have a
situation where our sitting President flaunts his ability to do what
every citizen in this country cannot do and that is intimidate or
somehow affect what a witness will say in a grand jury proceeding and

[[Page H11586]]

make allegations about political implications of Special Prosecutor
Starr with no evidence presented to back what he is saying publicly.
Mr. Speaker, the Republicans who signed this letter are no
conservatives. They are moderates, and many of them would be considered
to the left in our party, Members who supported this President on
issues as I have. I have voted with this President on family and
medical leave and voted with him on anti-strike breaker and voted with
him on environmental issues and voted with him on more funding for the
poor, $100 million plus up in the community action agency program and
supported him when he has been right. But I will not stand in this body
and allow anyone to think that because of their office they can
manipulate the system in such a way that he will hope that through the
next 5 weeks that this woman will just stay quiet and not be involved
because there is that possibility out there of a presidential pardon.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that we need to have this President come
before the American people and do what he has not done very well, and
that is be honest with the people about his intentions.
All he has to say publicly is, I will not issue a pardon for Jim or
Susan McDougal, for Jim Guy Tucker or anyone else. I will let the
process work. If he says that, he has solved our problem and we will
let the process work as it did with Richard Nixon.
Mr. President, again, as a child of the 1960's, as someone who is
very close in age to this President, I am absolutely outraged at what
is occurring. I think that this body has got to take action and this
letter will help accomplish that.
With that I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Rochrabacher].
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The Chair reminds
all Members, they must address their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my friend from
Pennsylvania, perhaps he could explain, perhaps he could explain for
the record exactly what the Whitewater investigation is all about. Some
people who have heard Whitewater do not fully understand that what we
are really talking about here is the looting of a savings and loan
institution in Arkansas. Basically a clique, a small political clique
in Arkansas who ran that State are basically being accused of looting
the savings and loan that was guaranteed by the taxpayers. Once that
savings and loan, Madison Savings and Loan went belly up, then we got
stuck, the American taxpayers got stuck for tens of millions of dollars
that then were needed to pay off the debts of the bankrupt savings and
loan.
All of the activities that are going on concerning Whitewater,
basically the roadblocks that are being put up and the stonewalling
that is happening and the various attempts to attack the special
prosecutor and to prevent people from getting evidence, that basically
is happening as part of an attempt to thwart the investigation of the
looting of a savings and loan, is that not correct?
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The gentleman is very familiar with the
case. I am not on the appropriate Committee on House Oversight but I
have followed it during my process. As I understand it, that is exactly
what happened. It was a looting of a savings and loan.
That is why the special prosecutor was set up and comparing it to
what happened in the 1970's, it was a bipartisan effort to see whether
or not the President, who was of my party and of the gentleman's party,
in fact did something that violated the basic trust of the American
people, and we found that he did. What bothers me the most is that the
President's wife at that time was leading the effort to uncover the
President and what he had done.
And now we have a situation where the President has gone far beyond,
far, far beyond the coverup of a third-rate burglary. Tampering with a
Federal witness is a felony. To lay out the possibility of a pardon,
while there is a person who is incarcerated because she will not
respond to a request by a legitimate judge and special prosecutor in
this country, is a felonious act. I am not a lawyer but that is what it
is. I have asked people. It is an outrage that this country should not
allow to happen. In my mind this action makes Richard Nixon look like a
Sunday school teacher in comparison in terms of what has occurred this
week.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, in 1992, when then-Governor Clinton was
kicking off his presidential campaign, I have a distant memory of that
event. And recently someone called my attention to the subject matter
that he used to kick off his presidential campaign. I am not sure if my
friend from Pennsylvania is aware of what the central theme of the
President's first campaign speech was, but it was honesty in
government. And he used as an example of the terrible dishonesty that
was going on in the Federal Government, he used the savings and loan
scandal as the basis for his charge of the corruption that was going on
in Washington, DC.
I believe that it is ironic at best, it is ironic today for us to be
confronted with stonewalling and roadblocks being thrown into the path
of a special prosecutor who is attempting to come to grips and to
follow the leads that are necessary to bring to justice those people
who were involved with the looting of a savings and loan institution
that cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

Some people have said that the President, that this President,
President Bill Clinton, has more chutzpah in the history of this
country. There are a lot of reasons for saying that. He did have enough
chutzpah, for example, to try to change the language when he tried to
say that taxes were contributions and Federal spending all of a sudden
became investments. It took a lot of chutzpah to be able to try to face
the American people and try to say that, convince them that taxation is
really contribution and Federal spending is really investment and in
some way fool them into the reality that that was different.
It takes a lot of chutzpah for a President who began his presidential
campaign on the theme of honesty in government and attacking this
savings and loan scandal to now be engaged in the type of tactics that
you have just outlined, to try to basically thwart an investigation
into the savings and loan scandal that was taking place right in
Arkansas. Of course, he would suggest that it was happening right
underneath his nose but he did not know anything about it and that his
wife, although deeply involved in the law firm that had some of these
accounts and dealt with people who were dealing with the savings and
loan, that she of course knew nothing about it as well. This does take
some chutzpah.
It also takes some chutzpah, as they say, for the same President to
simply shrug off miraculous happenings that have been going on during
this investigation. For example, most people have probably forgotten by
now the miraculous appearance of Hillary Clinton's billing records for
the Rose Law Firm that just were, had disappeared for about a year and
then like a miracle appeared in the living quarters of the first family
in the White House.
These things were either a miracle or someone consciously did these
things. It just seems that the press is willing to ignore that, but if
a Republican like Richard Nixon would have been involved in something
as blatant as this, it would not be a matter for a chuckle, it would be
a matter for questions and follow-up questions and a dogged
investigation from that moment on.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I would say to my friend and colleague
that I think this is the straw that breaks the camel's back, because
now we have the American people seeing through what has been going on
here and we have an instance where you have a major columnist for the
Washington Post, the New York Times editorial board, Daniel Schorr, the
Wall Street Journal, editorial papers across the country, my own local
paper in my county has been so incensed with the President that when he
visited Philadelphia this past Wednesday, they broke their tradition
and editorially endorsed his opponent the day he came to Philadelphia.
This is incensing people who have worked with this President, and I
wanted to yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn], who just
came over here, because like me and perhaps unlike some of our other
Members of our caucus, he and I worked with this President on issues.
He and I have supported him on environmental priorities. He and I have
supported him on

[[Page H11587]]

issues affecting those things that we maybe differ with our caucus a
little bit. And now it has got us to the point where we are incensed
and outraged because perhaps in our, I will let the gentleman speak for
himself but in my case, 1972 was a turning point because it displayed
the arrogance that one person could have in thinking that they were
above the people and above the laws that all of us have to live
under. What he has done in this case is he has gone beyond the limit.

I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] who, by the way,
came over to sign the letter. We now have 186 signatures and, Mr.
Speaker, I would urge our colleagues sitting in their offices who have
not signed from either party to come over to the floor. The letter is
here and, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage their constituents back home,
Mr. Speaker, if they would like to make sure they communicate that,
that would be appropriate because many of them are in their offices
this very evening and phone calls to them might prod them to come over.
Mr. DORNAN. If I could just have 10 seconds, did you notice the front
page of the most truthful paper calls it a curt letter with a small
``c.'' First, I looked and I said, hey, Curt's name should be
capitalized here. They meant it was a rather brief, succinct letter.
What should we be doing, dripping with honey and with treacle running
down our back and tell him, do not pardon these people?
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. My point is, this is something I did not
want to have to do on the last day of the session, which should not be
in this mode, but, Mr. Speaker, this is it. It is the last chance for
us to speak out.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I
happened to be working here on another bill that we are putting through
the Senate, and we have already put through here. I heard your remarks
and I think they are frankly the most brilliant remarks I have heard
since becoming a Member of Congress in January 1993. You are absolutely
right. You are absolutely digging into the right aspects of this.
What we have is the intimidation of the chief executive of the United
States, of the judicial branch of the United States Government. What
you have described, which is true, is absolutely unheard of. I think
every American citizen should share your and our outrage that are
talking about this subject tonight. It is absolutely shameless conduct.
As you say, if you have some evidence on the special counsel, produce
it or quit the nonsense and the PR and the charm going around this
country.
I gave the gentleman a question I wrote out a few days ago on this
very subject, which is what should be put to all candidates in the
national debates. If the press sits in that debate and does not put the
question, and I have put it about as succinctly as I can there, then I
think you are doing the people a disservice before they vote in
November, because what you described, your hunches, your instincts are
absolutely correct.
I have spent a year and a half with Chairman Clinger of the Committee
on Government Reform and Oversight. I am chairman of one of the
relevant subcommittees on this matter. On Filegate, Travelgate, call it
anything you want in the Watergate tradition, what we have seen there
is the most cruel treatment to civil servants, if you will, in quotes,
who have served numerous presidents of both parties, were doing their
job. And suddenly the Arkansas gang said, hey, we would like those
jobs. Everybody knows any President can come in and fire anybody he
wants. But this presidency knew that those people were respected by the
media, so charges were trumped up and the FBI, I am sorry to say, was
brought into the matter and even told what to write hither and yon.
When you look at that record that Chairman Clinger, who regretfully
is retiring from this institution, brought out, his instincts were
right in the spring of 1993; he knew something was wrong. And there is
a law on the books that says, if so many, seven or eight of us on
Government Operations, as it was at that time, sign, requesting the
executive branch to produce the papers, we can do it.

{time} 2100

And we did it, and we were stiffed every single week for weeks. Now
our friends on the other side say, ``Well, gee, why are you bringing
this up in an election year?'' Well, if they produced the documents
that the law says they should have produced, we would have had that
thing wound up in 1993 and 1994.
Now some of us are objective on that committee. And I will tell you,
I did not know Chris Shays until I came here, but I never was so proud
to serve with an individual in my life as Chris Shays. In the previous
Congress, when you had the HUD scandal that occurred under the Reagan
administration, he, as a Republican, went after the witnesses to get
the truth, just like any of us should, regardless of who is in the
White House.
What we want is the truth. That is what Chairman Clinger wanted. That
is what I wanted. That is what most of us on the committee wanted. And
slowly we are getting it. But it is dribbled out to us after subpoena,
after subpoena is issued, after we have to threaten them with contempt
of Congress, after passing a resolution here which could mean jail
time, and finally it is dribbled out.
And as my colleague from California knows, just the most amazing
amount of miracles appear. Papers; it is like Peter Pan is running
around dropping records on tables, and suddenly people come in and find
them. You know, it is unbelievable, and where is the media to do the
hard work that Woodward and Bernstein did which brought them the
appropriate prizes because they were right on the track? They nailed it
down. And where is the help to nail it down?
But I commend you for raising this subject, because it is on
everybody's mind, and each presidential candidate should be asked that
question.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank my colleague.
Mr. HORN. And I would like to put the question in the----
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Put that question in the Record, Mr.
speaker.
The question referred to is as follows:

Mr. President: Will you promise the America people that if
you are re-elected, or even if you should lose in November,
that you will, under no circumstances, use the Presidential
pardon power to pardon either Jim McDougal, or Susan
McDougal, or Jim Guy Tucker, or any member, present or
former, of the White House staff, or any member of your own
family, or any other person that the Independent Counsel may
investigate or prosecute?
Potential follow-ups: Will you promise to resign if you
should use the pardon power?
Why will you not give a straight answer to this very simple
question?

And I would just say to him that Chris Shays, in fact, signed the
letter, as did many other moderate Republicans who stood up when there
was a HUD scandal in the Reagan administration, asked the tough
questions, went to the wall to go through the investigation in a
bipartisan way, just as bipartisan Members did, Republicans and
Democrats back in 1972.
And I would just ask the gentleman who has been involved in the
oversight committee in this area, that individual who had, as you say,
trumped up charges brought against him that basically ruined his career
and his family and caused him to spend hundreds and thousands of
dollars, Billy Dale; that led to a trial, also like Susan McDougal.
Would the gentleman tell me what the outcome of that trial was and
how quickly the verdict came down?
Mr. HORN. It came within, I believe, 2 hours. It was a very quick
verdict, and the sad thing is, after they wrecked not only Billy Dale's
reputation, but other members of the Travel Office staff, they wrecked
their reputations, and they cost hundreds of thousands of dollars
collectively on the part of the individuals who were in that Travel
Office, and, as I said earlier, they served Democratic and Republican
administrations with good faith and efficiency, yet they were dragged
out of the White House, told to get out of there by 5 o'clock, a
station wagon comes up, they are lying on the floor as they are taken
out.

I mean it was something that would happen in the Soviet Union, for
Heaven's sake, and this has happened in 13 acres downtown. The White
House of the United States; it is supposed to epitomize democracy. And
talk about

[[Page H11588]]

the misuse of institutions of the Government. As was true of the Nixon
administration, they misused the FBI. And when we get into Filegate,
that is a whole other story we ought to----
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. And what the gentleman did not mention
was, that verdict that came down within 2 hours was a complete and
total acquittal, unlike Susan McDougal, who went on television after a
jury of her peers convicted her, I believe, of four counts and her
husband of 18 or 19 counts. Unlike Susan McDougal, Billy Dale was
acquitted by a jury of his peers of all charges within 2 hours. But his
reputation was ruined.
Mr. Speaker, this kind of action is not America. We did not tolerate
this when Richard Nixon was the president. We came together as a
country and said this is not the kind of leadership that should be
leading America. And in this case, this President had better answer for
his actions and withdraw his political statements, answer whether or
not he will pardon, or he should step aside, or this country should
take action to remove him from office based on his actions in this
situation.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think the President's action concerning the
Travelgate affair does indeed show the character of the individual we
are now talking about who happens to be President of the United States.
I worked in the White House for 7 years and knew Billy Dale very
well, and the public should understand whom we are talking about here.
We are not talking about a political appointee, who was appointed by
the Republicans, who happened to be a holdover. No.
Billy Dale is a civil servant. He is a veteran who ran an office in
the White House that had served President Carter as well as President
Ford and as well as Ronald Reagan, a man who is just a civil servant
like other civil servants, whose patriotism is demonstrated in the hard
work and long hours that he takes in a job that is different than other
civil service jobs, because he had to travel with the President, he had
to make sure things are done.

Sometimes they work until midnight, but as a civil servant, he does
not get overtime pay. This is someone whose patriotism was expressed in
the fact that he was doing his very best job for those who held the
office.
And that is the way it was with all those folks down in the travel
office; we knew that. They were regular human beings, they were people
that, you know, spend their times with their family and churches, and
they are totally nonpolitical. You could always go to them with a
problem, and they were there to help.
Well, these people were fired precipitously when President Clinton
became President. Now why were they fired? Well, we know now that they
were fired because the President had some cronies that he wanted to put
in the office. One was an attractive female, and one had to do with a
crony who basically was engaged in a travel company that wanted to get
contracts, that had something to do with who was handling the travel
office.
Well, before we can do that, of course, we have to get rid of these
just average Americans. But who cares about them? Who cares about these
civil servants?
What is significant is not only the President was off base and that
the White House was off base in this matter, but that once that act
happened, once it happened, it was a wrong thing to do.
Instead of admitting that they made a mistake, the White House set
out to destroy these people, to destroy them, not just to fire them,
but to charge then with improprieties and illegalities and to actually
bring legal and criminal charges against them to utterly destroy them.
In order to what? In order to make sure there was no political damage
for the President for making a wrong decision.
This is the nature of the person who is occupying the Presidency of
the United States today. This is wrong. This indicates an arrogance; it
indicates an absolute disregard for other human beings. How can you
look at another human being and treat them in that way? I would not
treat my enemies in that way. I would not charge my enemies with crimes
that they did not commit in order to gain some type of upsmanship in a
political match. I would not do that.
This is even worse than that. This is charging a civil servant with
crimes in order to give yourself a political advantage, someone who is
not even your political enemy.
Let us just note that this wrongdoing was recognized almost
immediately by the jury, and within 2 hours, as we said, Billy Dale and
these loyal civil servants, these loyal Americans who had worked their
lives out in this particular spot in the White House, they were totally
exonerated, and then what was the President's action?
When we tried to ensure that these people would not have to sell
their homes, that these people would not have to have all of their life
savings drained away because they had to have such legal bills, what
then did the President do? Do you remember?
The President at first agreed, OK--well, through his spokesman--well,
yeah, we will sign the bill if the Congress passes a bill to take care
of their legal fees, and then he took it back. And then he took it back
because he says he wants the legal fees of these people who were
charged with criminal activity themselves to be paid by the Government
or we cannot take care of these people who were just absolutely victims
of his own misdeeds.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The gentleman is absolutely correct, and
the actions there are appalling to those Members who have been involved
in looking at this situation, and it has just been devastating for that
family.
Unfortunately, as much as the media had a fond affection for Billy
Dale, and some of them I even understand contributed to his legal
defense fund, they did not take this case. It was early on in the
Clinton administration. It was just kind of brushed aside.
And it has been confusing for the American people to understand, and
some who do not tune in regularly say, Well, there is another they are
just charging; you know, it is another accusation; these accusations
fly back and forth all the time, and it is just politics as usual. But,
Mr. Speaker, this is different.
As I said before, this struck me this week because I have not felt
this way since I was outraged, as a public school teacher in 1972, when
I, as a Republican, heard that Richard Nixon had, in fact, covered up a
third-rate burglary and, in fact, accidentally or deliberately had part
of his tapes erased that he kept in his office.
What do we have now, Mr. Speaker? We have a President who feels such
arrogance that he can stand up in a public forum on national TV and he
can say with a straight face, ``I don't know whether I'm going to deal
with that issue of pardons or not, it will take its course,'' and then
goes on to say, ``But there is no doubt that what is being done to
Susan McDougal is politically motivated because they want to get Bill
and Hillary Clinton.''

Mr. Speaker, I will say it again. No person in this country, be he or
she Republican or Democrat, potentate or king, President or street
worker, is entitled to violate the law and violate it especially with
the arrogance that we have seen displayed this week.
But I think, Mr. Speaker, the bending point and the breaking point
has arisen, and I sense a frustration and a feeling of incense across
the country that is being displayed by the media that perhaps was not
displayed during the Bill Dale situation.

announcement by the speaker pro tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The Chair must
remind all Members that it is not in order to engage in personalities
toward the President.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I understand that comment,
and I am not engaging in personalities, I am engaging in factual
information in regard to comments made by the leader of this country in
a national public forum where he basically allowed the impression to be
left that a pardon could be offered to someone who right now is in jail
for contempt, of not cooperating with the Federal grand jury and the
U.S. prosecutor.
I yield to my friend and colleague, Mr. Horn.
Mr. HORN. I think you are absolutely right on that, and I regret to
say, on the earlier point you made, that Billy Dale's legal fees and
the others that were so terribly treated by White House officials have
been stopped in this Congress by some of our friends on

[[Page H11589]]

the other side of the aisle and the other body, and those fees should
certainly be paid.
I think one of the most eloquent members of our Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight is the representative from Maryland,
Connie Morella, and she has zeroed in over many hearings on just the
point you have, the inhumane treatment of these workers, some of whom
voted for the President, some of whom went back to the Kennedy-Johnson
administration, and, as was said by my colleague from California, they
were professionals, they were serving the media, and the media had a
lot of demands, especially when you travel with the President, all that
involved, and they did a splendid job, and they knew they were
respected by the media, and they covered their tracks.

This was the modern coverup. They were covering their tracks on why
they really wanted to get rid of the office. And as all three of us
have said, and it is in the evidence under oath since all our witnesses
are under oath, it was simply relatives of the President that want to
take over the travel office.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman would yield, the fact is that when
things are just permitted to happen and the proper attention is not
paid to them by the press, other things that are worse happen. People
get arrogant because they can get away with things.
For example, right off the bat we heard that the First Lady had been
involved with some kind of commodity scheme that permitted her $100,000
profit. Now, if that had been any Republican President's wife, this
would have been examined, and today, every time there would be a press
conference during the election, you would be having people ask
questions about it.
But that is just a distant memory now. It is a distant memory, and
the fact that she got away with that, then we have--who hears about the
Travelgate scandal now? Is the President being asked about this?
The fact is, if we were not bringing it up, the press would not be
following through. And, my dear friend from Pennsylvania, you are
talking about something and comparing it to the Watergate scandal
wherein a third-rate burglary, which was wrong, which was a wrong thing
for President Nixon and his staff to have gotten involved with during a
political year, the incredible time and effort that was taken by
members of the media to follow up, to dog it, to get every detail, to
follow through every bank account was just something that they would
not let go.

{time} 2115

That sent a message to a lot of people. That was a good message: We
in government cannot be arrogant and we cannot abuse power.
But what has happened with the current administration is that they
came here believing that they could get away with things that no other
administration could get away with. I am afraid that the news media,
the news media is verifying this terrible fact.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both of my
friends and colleagues for appearing here tonight with me. I had
originally come here to do a 5-minute special order, but felt the
opportunity to take additional time and did so.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Weldon, my special order is following you, and I will
ask my California colleagues to stay, because I want to see the same
firestorm in the press about Clinton threatening to shut down the
Government over giving Social Security to illegal immigrants, and
demanding that we use up tens of thousands of schoolteachers like my
brother Dick to educate the children of illegal immigrants, even though
we have grandfathered in anybody who is already in school through grade
12. We are going to discuss that.
Here is something I want to tell you. I have a reputation around
here, Mr. Weldon----
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. No, I do not believe that.
Mr. DORNAN. For not being a shy, retiring type. But I just saw you do
something that makes me feel not limp-wristed, but not as tough as I
thought I was, because you challenged the Parliamentarian, and you were
right.
Our great Speaker up here, the gentleman from Georgia, Mac Collins,
the Speaker pro tem of the day, only transmits to us what the
Parliamentarian tells him. The Parliamentary advice was to tell you
that you were getting personal with Clinton.
We are talking about pirating funds from a bank, looting a bank.
Webster Hubbell is in jail for the mirror image of doing what he and
Hillary Clinton did together. So of course Clinton is thinking pardon,
because Hillary Clinton is not protected by rule XVIII.

Announcement by the Speaker p.t.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The gentleman will
suspend.
Mr. DORNAN. Yes. I am going to fight back with the Parliamentarian.
Let us have it out on the last day of Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair must remind Members that, although
remarks in debate may include criticism of the President's official
actions or policies, it is a breach of order to question the personal
conduct of the President, whether by actual accusation or by mere
insinuation.
Mr. DORNAN. I deliberately did not mention him, Mr. Speaker. Tell the
Parliamentarian to open up her ears and listen. I said Hillary is not
protected by rule XVIII.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
Mr. DORNAN. All right. I have had it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. DORNAN. Thank you. I said Hillary. She is not protected by rule
XVIII. Only Mr. Al Gore and Mr. Bill Clinton.
Hillary, I can talk about Roger Clinton being a cocaine addict for
the next solid hour. I can even quote what he said about his brother if
I do not use the name. People will have to figure out who his brother
is. He might have 10 brothers. He might have one half-brother. But I
can do anything I want to Roger Clinton, and I choose not to bang on
Hillary Clinton much, but tonight is an exception, because she is the
twin of Webster Hubbell.

Together they did all the coverups in what the gentleman from
California [Mr. Rohrabacher] called the pirating, the looting, I am not
talking about the President here, the looting and the pirating of funds
for their own personal political gain in Arkansas.
I could talk for 1 hour without mentioning----
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I know the gentleman will talk for 1
hour. I would just ask the gentleman to let me conclude.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman again for
not allowing the Chair, through our pal, Mr. Collins, to chastise you
incorrectly when you are discussing public crimes, not making personal
attacks.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman.
Just in concluding, Mr. Speaker, once again it was with reluctance
that I came over here tonight, but I had to do it.
I got involved in the 1970's in public life probably for the same
reason the Presidentdid, to serve my constituents. I was outraged at
what Richard Nixon did. He was in my party. I was dismayed at my party
because of what he had done, in thinking he could be above the law and
he could cover up a third-rate burglary.
What I saw this past week, Mr. Speaker, and I am not talking about
anything that has gone before, what I saw this week in terms of
publicly talking about an ongoing investigation, leaving the
possibility out there of a Presidential pardon, and then making
accusations with no proper backup, has to be dealt with.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 186 Members of this institution, and
perhaps some more who will join us, I, tomorrow, will have this
communication delivered to the President of United States. I hope that
he takes positive response to the first question, which is, in fact, to
say yes, positively, he will not issue a Presidential pardon to any of
those who have been convicted in the Whitewater scandal; and, second, I
ask him to either provide documentation of political motives or efforts
on the part of Mr. Starr or to withdraw the public statements that he
has made.

[[Page H11590]]

I do so in the hopes of keeping this country the freest, the most
democratic country in the world, and a country where everyone,
including my friends back in Delaware County, who have to go to work
every day and abide by the speed limits and the regular laws all of us
have to abide by, understand that the man sitting in the White House is
no better than they are, and must abide by those same rules and laws.

____________________