[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 56 (Thursday, May 7, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2985-H2987]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            WHITE HOUSE SILENCE: AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT TRUTH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is recognized for 
20 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate that I have to come 
down to the floor again to try to put things in perspective about what 
is going on around the White House and now is infecting the House of 
Representatives and its committees. There is a lot of spin out there. 
The spinmeisters of the President are trying to keep the American 
people from the right to know the truth. We keep asking the question, 
is the President of the United States above the law? Yet the 
spinmeisters are pushing hard and pushing often with a concerted 
strategy. We all know what the strategy is. The strategy, Mr. Speaker, 
is basically to stonewall, drag your feet, hide documents, claim 
executive privilege, hide behind your lawyers. But the bottom line is 
that it is the spin, the whole spin and nothing but the spin to block 
the American people's right to know the truth.
  I took the well of the House not too long ago and asked for the 
President to tell the American people the truth. I guess he did not 
hear my speech and he did not want to do it. But it now has boiled over 
into the House of Representatives. I will talk about that in a minute, 
and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
  Mr. Speaker, I just ask the question, why are the Democrats trying to 
change the subject when it comes to the problems in the White House? 
Why are the House Democrats trying to cover up for the administration? 
Why do they not want a real investigation of the facts surrounding 
illegal foreign money in the Clinton campaign and possible charges of 
obstruction of justice in the Clinton administration?
  Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, Judge Norma Holloway Johnson threw 
out President Clinton's claim of executive privilege regarding the 
latest scandal in the White House. No wonder. The President had been 
taking indecent liberties with the concept of the executive privilege. 
He has hidden behind executive privilege in order to keep the American 
people from knowing the truth. According to press accounts, the White 
House may even appeal this decision, which fits into their strategy of 
use the courts and the system to stall, delay and stonewall. There is 
only one reason that the President would want to appeal this decision 
and that is to keep the American people from learning the truth. Why 
else would you claim executive privilege if you did not want the 
American people to know the truth? The whole idea of executive 
privilege is you do not want to tell the truth.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I just said no man is above the law. Judge Johnson's 
decision reaffirms that basic American principle. No matter what the 
strategy that the White House decides to employ, the American people 
have a right to know the truth. An appeal by the President on this case 
would amount to one more effort to stonewall the Starr investigation 
and to keep the truth away from the American people. What is that 
truth? Nobody knows for certain. But bits and pieces of the truth 
continue to leak out. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
recently released transcripts of conversations between Webster Hubbell 
and his wife that were recorded when Mr. Hubbell was in prison for a 
lying and fraud conviction, that he finally, after many months of 
claiming that he was innocent, finally admitted and pleaded guilty. He 
was in prison. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Hubbell knew that his 
conversations were being recorded. That is common practice in prison. 
There is a very large sign that is posted from the jail cell where he 
made the phone call that says that your phone conversations are being 
recorded. But even though he knew his conversations were being recorded 
and said so on the tapes, he made some statements that lead to some 
very serious questions.

                              {time}  1615

  Now the Washington Post, certainly not a fan of House Republicans, 
had this to say about those conversations, and I quote:

       That said, however, the accurate transcripts are also 
     damming and very nearly so. They make clear that Mr. Hubbell 
     and his wife had a sense of themselves as being held on a 
     kind of string by the White House to which they were beholden 
     for badly needed income; that if Mr. Hubbell's silence was 
     not being bought in the White House case, as the independent 
     counsel's office suspects, at the very least he and his wife 
     were sensitive to how their remarks and behavior were being 
     received by the President and Mrs. Clinton, were anxious to 
     please, and were carefully kept in that state of anxiety by 
     the White House emissaries.

  The Washington Post goes on to conclude that the tapes still raise 
real questions. The President's use of executive privilege, for 
instance, also raises serious questions that need to be answered by 
this administration:
  Why did the President invoke this privilege when national security 
was not at issue?
  Was it an abuse of power?

[[Page H2986]]

  Does the President's use of the executive privilege now mean that the 
President of the United States believes that he is above the law?
  Now the New York Times, Mr. Speaker, a surprising new member of the 
vast right-wing conspiracy, has this to say about the President's use 
of executive privilege, and I quote:

       Properly construed, the doctrine of executive privilege 
     exempts only a narrow band of presidential activities from 
     the reach of legal inquiry. To invoke that privilege in a 
     broad and self-serving way, as the Clinton White House has 
     done to shield itself from Ken Starr's inquiry, is to abuse 
     it.
       But this White House is not easily embarrassed. It has 
     tried to invoke the hallowed attorney-client privilege, even 
     when the attorneys are servants of the public, not the 
     President's private lawyers. And in the past few weeks it has 
     trotted out a brand new privilege, the doctrine of protective 
     function to insulate President Clinton's Secret Service 
     detail from questions about the behavior patterns of Monica 
     Lewinsky, the former White House intern. All this legal 
     inventiveness carries the implicit assertion that Mr. Clinton 
     is somehow uniquely above the law and thus raises the kind of 
     constitutional questions that ought to be exposed to public 
     debate.

  That is the New York Times writing that.
  But where is this public debate, Mr. Speaker? When will the President 
come clean on the issue of executive privilege?
  In his press conference last week the President maintained his 
incredible public silence responding to question after question, and he 
responded to the question on this particular issue by saying, and I 
quote:
  ``I cannot comment on those matters because they are under seal,'' 
close quote.
  The only seal they are under is the presidential seal. He has 
employed the executive privilege as a defensive tactic to keep the 
American people from knowing the truth. That is a very troubling 
precedent, a precedent that I think should trouble the Democrat Party. 
But an eerie silence has emanated from the Democrat minority. When it 
comes to the President's use of executive privilege, the Democrats hear 
no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil, Mr. Speaker.
  Where is the outrage from the Democrats about this abuse of power? Do 
they honestly think that the President of the United States is right to 
cite executive privilege in these cases? If Ronald Reagan or George 
Bush had even dared to use executive privilege in this manner, I 
guarantee you that the Democrats would be out here on this floor every 
day demanding a full explanation, if not a resignation.
  Mr. Speaker, no man is above the law. This is a proposition that we 
hold very sacred in our representative democracy. The President does 
not have the divine right of a king. He must follow the law even if it 
may sometimes be uncomfortable for him, and his use of executive 
privilege is an affront to that concept.
  The American people also have the right to know the truth about the 
activities in the White House. The longer that the President's men 
stonewall this investigation and deploy the tactics such as executive 
privilege, the more damage that is done to our democracy. The longer 
that these allegations fester, the more damage is done to the office of 
the presidency.
  If our friends on the other side of the aisle think that the 
President's use of executive privilege is proper, then I urge them to 
speak up.
  Speak up, speak up.
  Silence, silence.
  Let us have a public debate on this very important issue. Let us hear 
from the President's allies about their reasons for supporting this 
very troubling precedent.
  Mr. Speaker, next week I plan to introduce legislation that will put 
some limits on the President's ability to claim executive privilege. 
Now my legislation is pretty simple. It has a reporting requirement. 
Anytime the President decides to invoke executive privilege, he must 
make a formal report to Congress. Now this would mean that Congress, 
the press, and the general public would be aware of executive privilege 
claims instead of wondering like they do now.
  My legislation also says that there is no Secret Service privilege 
for criminal proceedings involving the President's conduct. Because it 
deals with criminal proceedings and the President's conduct, it does 
not reflect on the security role of the Secret Service.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, no matter how many times the President tries to 
invoke executive privilege, this Nation holds dear these two 
principles: No man is above the law, and the American people have the 
right to know the truth.
  And let me just speak about the new strategy, actually it is not new, 
the strategy that is going on in the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight; the strategy of attack your accuser, change the subject, 
because if you do, it will become old news. That is what is going on 
here, and the American people know it, they understand it, they can see 
it. In order to keep us from getting to the truth, in order to keep us 
from getting the American people the truth because they have the right 
to know the truth, the Democrats and the administration are attacking 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). And why should we be 
surprised? Because it is their typical defense tactic; attack your 
accuser.
  We have seen this in the past. Who else have they attacked? Senator 
Thompson in the campaign finance investigation, Senator D'Amato in the 
Whitewater investigation, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) in 
Whitewater, Representative Clinger back during the Travelgate and FBI 
Filegate incidents, Ken Starr; they are attacking Ken Starr over 
Whitewater, FBI files, travel office and the Lewinsky matter. They are 
attacking FBI Director Freeh when he recommended an independent counsel 
for the campaign finance matter, some investigations. And they do all 
this so that they can change the subject, because by attacking their 
accuser the Democrats can change that subject.

  And what do they want to change the subject from? Put it back into 
perspective, Mr. Speaker. This is not a sex scandal. These are not 
scandals; these are crimes we are talking about investigating: 
Whitewater; the travel office affair; having over 900 FBI files on 
Republicans in the White House; the foreign campaign contributions to 
the DNC and others; Webster Hubbell who is also a convicted felon now 
indicted again; and it goes on and on. They are trying to make it old 
news, because once they have attacked the accuser and changed the 
subject, the original problem becomes old news and they do not need to 
address old news.
  But let us get back to the matter at hand, the investigation going on 
in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. What is going on 
here is we are trying to get to the bottom of the truth of what appears 
to be campaign finance abuses, and we are trying to get to the truth. 
You know, Mr. Speaker, there are over 92 witnesses that have either 
claimed the fifth, left the country, or refused to cooperate with this 
committee. I think the American people need to know that. Mr. Speaker, 
92 witnesses; not 1, not 2, not 3; 92 witnesses that have either taken 
the fifth amendment, fled the country, or refused to cooperate.
  On April 23, the committee Democrats voted 19 to zero against 
immunizing four witnesses who had taken the fifth before the committee. 
Now these are witnesses that the Justice Department, the Clinton 
Justice Department, had okayed for immunity and it was all right to 
accept their testimony.
  Irene Wu. Wu was Johnnie Chung's office manager and has firsthand 
knowledge of Chung's fund-raising activities and ties to foreign 
nationals. Wu has already received immunity from the Department of 
Justice. Nancy Lee. Lee also worked for Johnny Chung and allegedly 
solicited conduit contributions that were made to the DNC. Lee has also 
received immunity from the Department of Justice. Larry Wong. Wong was 
a close associate of Nora and Gene Lum and has knowledge of the Lums' 
illicit fund-raising activities. And Kent La. La is the President of a 
company that distributes Chinese cigarettes and is a close associate of 
Ted Siong, a major figure in the committee's investigation.
  Now why? Why the Democrats' opposition to immunity? It is outrageous, 
Mr. Speaker. The President's own Department of Justice informed the 
committee that it does not oppose the granting of immunity to these 
witnesses. Some of the committee Democrats have admitted that they are 
opposed to immunity solely to punish the

[[Page H2987]]

gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). Granting immunity is often the 
only way that the congressional investigations can get to the truth.
  And many times witnesses are granted immunity. They were granted 
immunity in Watergate, they were granted immunity by Republicans in 
Iran Contra, and even Senator Thompson's fund-raising investigation 
granted immunity to witnesses.
  But by opposing immunity to these four witnesses, the committee 
Democrats have made it very clear that they would rather engage in 
political in-fighting than to get to the truth about foreign money in 
American elections.
  So, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we know what this is all about. What 
this is all about is to cover up the truth, to keep the American people 
from knowing the truth, and if we can just keep putting it off after 
each election, sooner or later they think it will go away.
  Well, sooner or later the American people are going to know the 
truth, whether they want them to have it or not. And sooner or later, 
either the media of this country or the Republicans of this House will 
get to the bottom of the truth, Mr. Speaker, because no man is above 
the law and the American people have the right to know the truth.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).


                        THE MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk about one of the 
great injustices in our tax system. We have in our tax system a penalty 
on the very institution that we should be doing everything we can to 
encourage, the institution of the family. No American that you ask 
about this thinks that we ought to have a marriage tax penalty, but 
that is exactly what we have in the system now.
  If two people are married and they are both working, they almost 
inevitably pay more taxes than if they were both working and decided 
not to be married. And, in fact, I saw somebody in my district early 
this year who had gotten married in January because their accountant 
had advised them that if they got married in December it would cost 
them $3,600. Twenty-one million American couples pay an average 
marriage tax penalty of $1,400 a year just because they are married.

                              {time}  1630

  Nobody thinks that is right; we need to eliminate that from the 
penalty. Today I am going to be joined by two of my colleagues who have 
really been leaders in this fight, and they are the gentlemen from 
Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), 
who have introduced a bill that I am cosponsoring along with them.
  This bill eliminates the marriage penalty; it eliminates the marriage 
penalty by raising the brackets, by doubling the brackets, the 
individual brackets so that if the standard deduction is $4,150 now for 
a single person, for two people who are married, the deduction now is 
only $6,900.

                          ____________________