July 29, 1994 - Part 1
July 29, 1994 - Part 1
(10:47:52) OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD Senator DODD. Thank you very much, Mr, Chairman. Let me join Senator Sarbanes and Senator D'Amato in commending you in the manner in which you prepared this Committee for these hearings. It's not an easy task and I think you've done a very, very fine job. I'm struck at the outset, Mr. Chairman, having listened to two of our colleagues and friends on the other side and getting ready for these bearings, that they seem to be following the advice of Judge Roy Bean, the famous old hanging judge, who once said that we'd have a fair trial for the defendant and then we'd hang him. In listening to opening statements, that seems to be the case here. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear why We're here today and I want to lay out what I see as our role. The scope of these bearings, as you pointed out and Senator Sarbanes has stated, is rather narrow, pursuant to a Senate resolution adopted by the U.S. Senate. The question before this panel is not whether the laws have been broken. The Independent Counsel, Robert Fiske, and the courts would be the proper people to answer those questions. I believe Mr. Fiske has a staff of 10 attorneys, some 25 FBI agents, and countless others, and hundreds of hours. He has done his job to look into and identify if there are any illegal activities and then to seek punishment for the perpetrators. I believe be has done that job for the issues that we will review in this phase of our bearings: The investigation of Vincent Foster's suicide and the contacts between the White House and the Treasury Department. The answer as to whether or not there have been any illegal activities, I think, has been answered resoundingly and that is no. As Senator Sarbanes has pointed out, the report from Mr. Fiske concluded that no one within the White House or the Department of the Treasury acted with the intent to corruptly influence an RTC investigation. They also concluded that the evidence does not justify a criminal rosecution for any other Federal statute. I think that deserves being repeated and being repeated firmly. I'd also like to point out at this particular . juncture, if I could, Mr. Chairman, I understand we're under a resolution from the Senate to look into the suicide of Vincent Foster. I regret that. We watched-a Committee report, some 170 pages here-while some 125 people were interviewed. Countless others were examined 14 and the conclusion was, tragically, this was a suicide, and that the suicide had nothing to do with Whitewater. This panel is a Banking Committee, not a medical board of inquiry. We're Senators, not coroners. There are legitimate questions that ought to be examined but probing in a macabre way into a family tragedy will conclude that it was tragically a suicide and nothing more. I hope we can move very quickly and get to the issues that are more serious in my view. At any rate, Mr. Chairman, there's been a definitive statement as to the legality of questions. The only outstanding question, it would seem, is whether or not there was any improper conduct, and I'm not going to prejudge that question. We are neither defense attorneys nor prosecutors on this panel. Our role as Members of the U.S. Senate, our coequal but separate branch of Government, is to find out what happened and if what happened was improper. That's our responsibility. We don't want to minimize what is at stake here. But we also don't want to exaggerate beyond all proportion what has happened here. To compare Whitewater with Watergate and Iran-Contra, as some have done, borders on the ridiculous. Watergate led to more than 30 criminal convictions and the resignation of an American President. Iran-Contra yielded 11 criminal convictions. Both scandals arose from direct and conscious attempts by high Government officials to subvert democratic Government in this Nation. That's clearly what is not at issue here. As I said previously, at least on the matters before us in this bearing, there is no evidence of illegality. There is no evidence of obstruction of Justice. There were contacts between Administration officials and the regulators over investigations that concern the President. It has been alleged that those contacts were improper. That's a proper question, and we ought to examine that and we will. But as we examine that question, we must remember that nothing actually came of those contacts. Government officials may have discussed the status of an investigation. That may have been improper, and we should examine that, but did they do anything to actually change that status? There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that that was the case. Several of those