ch 22, 1994

fate way, hopefully in one forum, ve have not addressed that quesyet, but in one forum that can go rd under a time schedule and a procedure that is agreeable. makes sense to both sides. and s sense to the special prosecutor. WALKER So the gentleman is g me that the newspaper story is wrong. that the Speaker was aying when he said, "a concession, he was not making, a concession [*** hearings are going to take place." is saying that that 13 tatement of the situation and that et this resolution is predicated on *d-faith belief that hearings will be

***, GEPHARDT. If the gentleman continue to yield, maybe it is a Parence of interpretation.

e SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. DE ARZA). The time of the gentleman Pennsylvania (Mr. WALKER) has

-red.

GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield elf 1 minute.

Speaker, I would say to the genan that perhaps it is a difference nterpretation of the words of the Aker. I believe, again, the committ is ironclad that there will be an mpt made, a very serious attempt good faith, to try to find a way in proper forum, at the proper time, the proper sequencing, in coordina with the special prosecutor, to 2e comprehensive hearings that will all the facts on the table. r. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank rentleman from Missouri (Mr. GEP LDT].

fr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker. I yield balance of our time to the distinshed gentleman from Illinois Mr. ?DE].

be SPEAKER pro tempore. The genman from Blinois is recognized for 1 aute.

H 1813

have to talk about the role of the special counsel.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. FRANK).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker. I support the resolution, and I would like to make clear the basis.

First, we have had two sets of accusations. Many of us felt that the first set really did not really rise to the level requiring a full investigation. We have been talking to some extent about events involving regulations of a saVings and loan institution during the mid-1980's. We ought to be very clear when people talk about whether there has been any abuse within the administration, that with regard to those events. Madison Savings and Loan, Whitewater, et cetera, that no member of the Clinton administration was then holding Federal office. Any failure at that time to protect the interests of the Federal Government presumably will be laid at the door of the hearings of the people then in office, the ap pointees of President Reagan and, subsequently, the appointees of President Bush. I did believe that we have had in this Congress sufficient airing of those periods. If people want to go back to them later, I see no harm to it.

It did seem to me that a new set of

issues arose when people alleged that there may have been at the White House some interference with the regulatory process. I have seen no sugges tion that anything adverse happened, but I do agree that when allegations reach a certain level of decibel that it becomes important to have the hear

Mr. HYDE asked and was given perssion to revise and extend his re-ings. irks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am going support this resolution, but I just int to say I regret keenly that we are ving up in this resolution the right to munize witnesses. We should be very alous of our prerogatives and the Tht of oversight by Congress rests in e constitution. It may well be to operly fulfill our constitutional duty oversight we might have to give imunity to some witness. I hope not, od I think that can be agreed upon by eople on this investigating commitee. But why do we yield to Mr. Fiske Those job is to prosecute, search out, vestigate and report on whether riminal activity has occurred? Our job a to oversee how this institution worked and how the people worked it, nd it may be that we will need to 't immunity to somebody.

Speaker, we should be jealous of -powers just as the President is jealous of executive privilege. All Presidents have resisted the War Powers Act. I say to my colleagues, you don't

Now we ought to be very clear. Hear ings are not a sign that something defimitely has gone wrong. I think an analogy of the independent counsel statute is important. I have always felt that was important, both to find out where there was wrongdoing and to give the appropriate exoneration where wrongdoing was inaccurately charged, and one of the advantages of the independent counsel is that the independent counsel can give that exoneration with a degree of credibility that the Preaddent's own party could not give. I regard hearings now as a similar opportunity. I welcome the chance to have hearings.

Frankly we have heard even on the floor today references to two people resigning in the Justice Department when obviously one has nothing to do with anything remotely comparable here. An innuendo, an inference perhaps, because of billing practices that happened because the First Lady was in the same firm I welcome the chance to set these straight but I do think we

publican. an appointee, a would-be appointee of Republican administrations. having said. "It will interfere with the investigation you asked me to have if you have a certain kind of hearing: I think we are on to that, and I would differ with my friend, the gentleman from Dlinois. We appointed the special counsel. The President asked that a special counsel be appointed because the Republicans asked that we have him. To interfere now with the special counsel to do things that the special counsel said would be an interference with his ability to do his job lays down the groundwork later on for discrediting the special counsel. Having asked for one, having gotten one. It seems to me that consistency and fairness require that the special counsel be allowed to do his job without any interference.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker. I agree perfectly with everything the gentleman from Massachusetts said. I just formally do not like to yield a prerogative

that is ours.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.

Speaker. I acknowledge what the gentleman from Illinois said, He might not disagree in a specific instance, but let me say to my friend, by making that decision about immunity in a resolution on which we vote I don't think we give away any of our prerogatives. I don't think we're suggesting we give them to anybody else, and I gather we do agree in the given instance given the circumstances of the appointment of this special counsel to do things which he said would interfere, and, as we know, it's not just immunity that can interfere, but it is witnesses hearing what other witnesses say, it is having things done in public which ought to be done in private, it is having interviews at one level when they are being conducted privately at another.

I do think that it is very important. given the circumstances of this special counsel when he was appointed, that we not be interfering with what the special counsel does, and, therefore. I think it is appropriate that the resolution says we will work together, both sides, in good faith to come up with a format for hearings that will not interfere with the special counsel because. having appointed him, having led to having put pressure on to appoint him. having seen his appointment, now to undercut him now I think would be an illegitimate action.

H 1814

March 22, 1994

1550

Therefore, the resolution seems to me to be appropriately done.

Finally, let me say that people who my that the chairman of the Banking Committee was somehow under the direction of the leadership have appar ently never worked with the chairman of the Banking Committee. We may disagree with hira, bat his integrity and his commitment to fairness, as heighte sees fit, and his independence ought Hoyer not to be things that anyone would Humastos question.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I Field back the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Mr. De LA GARZA). The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. GEPHARDT) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, HL. Res. 394.

The question was taken Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present

Hochbrueckner

Later

Calvers

Bacchi (FL)

Cramer

McCandions McCloskey McCollum

Dellama

Hall (TX)

Abercrombie Collina (MI)

Resolved, That there shall be paid oat of the contingent fund of the House in accordance with this primary expense resolation not more than the amount specified in section 3 for investigations and studies by each committee named in such section, including expensce

(1) in the case of a committee named in section 3 for procurement of consultant services under section 22(1) of the Legisla tive Reorganimation Act of 1948; and

(2) in the case of a committee named in section 4. for provision of assistance for members of professional staff in obtaining specialized training under section 2:2) of such Act.

SEC. 2 The committees and amounts referred to in the first section are: Committee on Agriculture, $2.297.997; Committee Armed Bervices, 22.09.197; Committee on Beaking. Finance and Urtan Affairs. 34,186,660, Committee on the District of Co Jumbia, 1342,035: Committee on Education and Labor, 34,238,064: Committee on Energy and Commerce, $8.808.307; Committee on Fureign Affairs, 24.145.214: Committee on Government Operations, 13.203.873; Committee on House Administration, 81,294,288; PermaDent Select Committee on Intelligence. $104,600, Committee on the Judiciary. 22.734.853; Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 32,325,679; Committee on Natural Resources, 22,243.085; Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, $1,889,738; Committoo on Public Works and Transportation. $3.170.008: Committee on Rules. ST22.479. Committee on Science, Space, and Tecknology. $2.960.498: Committee on Small Busness, $1,073,000; Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $100,000; Committee on Ver erans Affairs. 8827.034; and Committee on Ways and Means, 35,070,000.

SBC. 3. (a) Of the amounts provided for in section 2. each committee named in subsection (b) may use not more than the amount specified in such subsection for consultant services under paragraph (1) of the first section.

(b) The committees and amounts referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, $12.00% Committee on Armed Bervices, $40,000, Committee on the District of Columbia, 28.000, Covrnities on Education

Base. A tape was not available for verification of

the content of these remarks.

The President's News Conference
March 24, 1994

The President. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Yesterday we were reminded that protecting our democracy and expanding its promise around the world can be costly and dangerous. Here at home we mourn the loss of the servicemen in the tragic aircraft accident at Pope Air Force Base, and we pray for a speedy recovery for those who were injured. This tragedy reminds us that the men and women who serve in the military put their lives at risk in the service of our Nation.

In Mexico, an assassin killed Luis Donaldo Colosio, the Presidential candidate of the Institutional Revolutionary Party. We send our condolences and our prayers to his family. And I urge the Mexican people at this difficult time to continue their strides toward economic and political reform and progress. With the Congress beginning its Easter recess tomorrow, this is a good time to assess the real work we are getting done on behalf of the American people. We're moving forward on our economic plan. The budget now moving through Congress, when passed, will give us 3 consecutive years of deficit reduction for the first time since Harry Truman was President. In 1995, we'll have the lowest budget deficit as a percentage of our annual income of any of the major industrialized countries. A recovering economy produced 2 million jobs last year, and we're on track to create 2 million more in '94.

Around the world America's efforts have helped to bring much needed calm to Sarajevo and led to an important political accord between the Bosnian Muslims and Croats. Our call for restraint has helped to start talks again the Middle East. We will continue our efforts to stop North Korea's nuclear program and to seek progress on human nghts in China, working to build a more positive relationship with that very important nation

This Friday, a week ahead of schedule, our troops will return home from Somalia. Be cause of their courageous efforts, Somal can now build its own future, a step it made in the right direction today with the acond

627

between the leaders of the two largest factions in that country.

Since we came here, our country has been moving in the right direction. Just today, the House of Representatives passed our legislation to limit the influence of lobbyists. Our administration is completing work on a comprehensive welfare reform proposal. We have presented to the Congress our very important reemployment proposal, to change the unemployment system to provide immediate retraining to those who lose their jobs. In a few days, with bipartisan support, the country will have an education reform law that sets national standards for our public schools. In a few weeks, Congress will pass a crime bill and put more police on the street, tougher gun laws on the books, and make "three strikes and you're out" the law of the land.

Speaker Foley assured me last night that the crime bill will be item number one on the agenda of the House when it returns to work. And in a few months we will succeed in passing health care reform. Just yesterday, the House Subcommittee on Health passed legislation to provide health security for every American. And while there will be lots of twists and turns in the legislative process, this year Congress will pass and I will sign a health reform which guarantees health care security to every American that can never be taken away, with the right to choose a doctor, with a plan that outlaws insurance abuses: no more dropping coverage or cutting benefits; no more lifetime limits; no more raising rates just because someone in your family has been sick or some are older than others. We want to preserve and strengthen Medicare, and we believe in this administration that those health benefits should be guaranteed through the workplace, building on what works today.

I know that many people around America must believe that Washington is overwhelmingly preoccupied with the Whitewater matter. But our administration is preoccupied with the business we were sent here to do for the American people. The investigation of Whitewater is being handled by an independent Special Counsel whose appointment I supported. Our cooperation with that counhas been total. We have supplied over 14000 documents, my tax returns dating

628

back to 1978, and made available every administration witness he has sought.

I support the actions of the House and the Senate clearing the way for hearings at an appropriate time that does not interfere with Mr. Fiske's responsibilities. And I will fully cooperate with their work as well. Tomorrow I will make available my tax returns dating back to 1977 when I first held public office. Cooperation, disclosure, and doing the people's business are the order of the day.

This is the best moment we have had in decades to do the hard work on so many issues that affect not only our own progress and prosperity, but the very way we think about ourselves as a nation. The American people should know that I and my administration will not be distracted. We are committed to taking advantage of this rare moment and achieving these important goals. Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

Whitewater

Q. Mr. President, you just said that you would release your tax returns back to 1977. Questions also have been raised about whether you made money or lost money in your Whitewater investment. Do you still believe that you lost about $70,000? And do you have any reason to believe that you owe any back taxes?

The President. I am certain that we lost money. I do not believe we owe any back taxes. If it is determined that we do, of course, we will I am now sure that we pay.

lost something less than $70,000, based on an interview I heard on television, or I heard about on television, with Jim McDougal with one of the networks, where he said that he felt that one of the loans I had taken from a bank where we also borrowed money for the land development corporation, he said he thought one of those was a personal loan. And so I started racking my brain to try to remember what that might have been, and by coincidence, I was also rereading the galleys of my mother's autobiography, just fact checking it, and I noticed that she mentioned there something that I had genuinely forgotten, which is that I helped her to purchase the property and what was then a cabin on the place that she and her husband. Dick Kelley, lived back in 1981, and that I was

a co-owner of that property with her for just a few months. After they married, he bought my interest out.

So that's where that-I borrowed the money to go into that investment. I paid the money back with interest. That was unrelated to Whitewater. All the other losses that we have documented to date we believe clearly are tied to the investment Hillary and I made in Whitewater. So we, in fact, lost some $20,700 less than the Lyon's report indicated because that loan came from a different place or came for different purposes. And there was another $1,500 payment I made on it. So whatever the total in the Lyon's report was, you should subtract from that $20.700 and another $1,500. And we believe we can document that clearly.

Tomorrow, my counsel, David Kendall, will brief the press on the evidence that we have, what's in the tax returns. You will see when you see the tax returns that those losses were clearly there. And he will be glad to support it with other information as well.

Helen (Helen Thomas, United Press International].

Q. Mr. President, do you know of any funds, any money-Whitewater seems to be about money-having gone into any of your gubernatorial campaigns or into Whitewater, particularly federally insured money? Do you know of any money that could have gone in?

The President. No. I have no knowledge of that. I have absolutely no knowledge of

that.

Rita [Rita Braver, CBS News].

Q. President Clinton, you just mentioned James McDougal, your former business partner. A lot of questions have been raised about his business practices. Can you tell us what drew you to him to begin with, and whether or not you still have faith now that he wasthat he is an honest businessman?

The President. Well, I can tell you that when I entered my relationship with him—. let's go back to then and not now-I knew Mr. McDougal and had known him for many years. I met him in the late sixties when he was running Senator Fulbright's office in Arkansas. I knew that sometime around that time, perhaps later, he got into the real estate business. When I entered into this investment, it was with a person I had known many