On the recordMarch 22, 1994
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 appointees 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 suggestion that anything adverse happened, but I do agree that when allegations reach a certain level of decibel that it becomes important to have the hearings. Now we ought to be very clear. Hearings are not a sign that something definitely has gone wrong.
Source
govinfo.gov




