[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 7 (Wednesday, February 2, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
WHITEWATER/MADISON UPDATE
Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I rise today to update my colleagues on
the RTC race against the statute of limitations in the Whitewater/
Madison controversy.
Madam President, the clock continues to tick away. Soon it will be
February 28 and the RTC will be out of time; the American people out of
luck.
The statute of limitations runs out on February 28, or at least that
is what I have been led to believe. That means that anyone who is
responsible for the loss of possibly millions of taxpayer dollars will
be immune from civil action after the 28th.
Why has it taken nearly 3 weeks to get a written response from the
RTC?
Yesterday, I came to the floor to inform my colleagues about the
delay game that the RTC was playing. My staff was told over the phone
that the RTC was operating under the assumption that the statute of
limitations would run out on February 28-- In other words, 26 days from
now. So we can now mark off 1 more day, in the countdown.
For almost 3 weeks I waited for a formal response from the RTC, and
it was only yesterday, after Chairman Riegle expressed his concern over
the RTC's delays, that I finally received a written reply. The statute
of limitations runs out on February 28, or at least that is what I have
been led to believe. Why can the RTC not give a clear answer? After
almost 3 weeks of waiting I must admit to my colleagues that this
letter is a disappointment. I have become seriously concerned about the
RTC's resolve to lay the facts before the Congress and the American
people, as well as the lack of time for any possible agency action.
Moreover, it is an example of bureaucratic obfuscation that is
nonresponsive and uninformative. I want to read the letter to my
colleagues because it is short and self-descriptive. It is dated
February 1.
Dear Senator D'Amato: On January 11 and January 25, 1994
you wrote to me concerning the statute of limitations
relating to Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan of McCrory,
Arkansas (``Madison''). I want to assure you that the
Resolution Trust Corporation is conducting a thorough review
of the potential civil claims it possesses as a result of the
failure of Madison. The RTC is, of course, mindful of the
impending February 28 anniversary date of the federal
takeover of Madison
Understand those words. It does not say it is the statute of
limitations. He says the anniversary date of the takeover of Madison.
It goes on in the second paragraph.
If such claims do exist, the RTC will vigorously pursue all
appropriate remedies using standard procedures in such cases,
which could include seeking agreements to toll the statute of
limitations. As you noted, the barriers presented by the
expiration of the statute of limitations in many cases have
been ameliorated by the extension of the Financial
Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989
(FIRREA) statutes in the RTC Completion Act (Act). The Act
has afforded the RTC an opportunity to investigate further
any civil claims which may be asserted against individuals or
entities associated with Madison Guaranty for fraud,
intentional misconduct resulting in unjust enrichment, or
intentional misconduct resulting in substantial loss to the
institution. As you know, the RTC's jurisdiction is solely as
to civil claims. Any potential criminal matters are within
the jurisdiction of the Justice Department.
Madam President, it took the RTC 3 weeks to write a letter with two
paragraphs that does not answer the one question that I have asked over
and over again. Specifically, when does the statute of limitations on
civil violations run out?
The statute of limitations runs out on February 28, or at least that
is what I have been led to believe. That means that anyone who is
responsible for the loss of possibly millions of taxpayer dollars will
be immune from civil action after this date; 26 days.
Why is the RTC's response to a basic question so confusing? While the
letter acknowledges that the agency--and I quote, is ``mindful'' of the
``impending February 28 anniversary date of Federal takeover of
Madison'' by regulators, it just does not answer the question. In fact
it raises more questions than it answers.
For example, what does the anniversary mean? Is this the day that the
statute runs? If so, why do they not tell us and stop speaking in code?
Does the anniversary have any significance for the RTC, and the right
of the American people to a full accounting? The statute of limitations
runs out on February 28, or, at least that is what I have been led to
believe. Why is it the RTC is so nonresponsive?
It is outrageous that Congress had to wait almost 3 weeks to learn
when the regulators took over Madison. That is public information.
After all, it was in the newspapers back in 1989. The RTC is trying to
duck a legitimate congressional inquiry and that is unacceptable. And
that is what the letter has done.
Meanwhile, the clock continues to tick away. The statute of
limitations runs out on February 28, or, that is what we have been led
to believe. Then why will the RTC not tell us what action they are
taking? Let us know. We have a right to know. The American people have
a right to know.
This letter raises additional questions. According to the letter a
``thorough review of the potential civil claims'' is underway. I am
encouraged by the signs of activity at the RTC, but I would like to
know what this thorough review entails. Most important, when will we
learn the results of this review? The clock is ticking. Will we find
out after the statute of limitations has run? Is February 28, really
the end?
Indeed, the statute runs on February 28, or that is what I have been
led to believe. Why has the RTC not done anything to stop it from
running?
Weeks ago, some of my colleagues and I suggested that an agreement
staying the statute of limitation would solve the problem. The letter
acknowledges that RTC might do this, but this is not a sufficient
answer. I want to know if the RTC will seek stay agreements and stop
the ticking of the clock.
The statute of limitations, again, runs out on the 28th, or, that is
what we have been led to believe. Will the RTC lose out to the ticking
clock? While these questions linger and the RTC moves at a snail's
pace, we have marked off another day on the Madison countdown to
February 28. We now have as little as 26 days remaining. The statute of
limitations runs out on 28th. When do we get the answers?
These questions demand informative and understandable responses, not
cryptic sidestepping. The American people have the right to know
whether or not the RTC, is vigorously pursuing justice and protecting
their wallets.
It now appears that the Banking Committee will have an opportunity to
question the RTC oversight board directly at an upcoming oversight
hearing. More on that tomorrow.
I request unanimous consent to have the RTC's letter of February 1
printed in the Record in its entirety.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Resolution Trust Corporation,
Washington, DC, February 1, 1994.
Hon. Alfonse M. D'Amato,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Banking, Finance and
Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator D'Amato: On January 11 and January 25, 1994
you wrote to me concerning the statute of limitations
relating to Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan of McCrory,
Arkansas (``Madison''). I want to assure you that the
Resolution Trust Corporation is conducting a thorough review
of the potential civil claims it possesses as a result of the
failure of Madison. The RTC is, of course, mindful of the
impending February 28 anniversary date of the federal
takeover of Madison.
If such claims do exist, the RTC will vigorously pursue all
appropriate remedies using standard procedures in such cases,
which could include seeking agreements to toll the statute of
limitations. As you noted, the barriers presented by the
expiration of the statute of limitations in many cases have
been ameliorated by the extension of the Financial
Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989
(FIRREA) statutes in the RTC Completion Act (Act). The Act
has afforded the RTC an opportunity to investigate further
any civil claims which may be asserted against individuals or
entities associated with Madison Guaranty for fraud,
intentional misconduct resulting in unjust enrichment, or
intentional misconduct resulting in substantial loss to the
institution. As you know, the RTC's jurisdiction is solely as
to civil claims. Any potential criminal matters are within
the jurisdiction of the Justice Department.
Sincerely,
Roger C. Altman,
Interim CEO.
Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts, and my
colleagues for being so gracious to afford me this opportunity to make
these remarks.
As I said, tomorrow, more on the upcoming oversight hearings. I yield
the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I see the Senator from Arkansas wants
to address this issue. Then I hope we will be able to get back to the
amendments of the Senator from Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, on Friday my very good friend and
colleague from New York, Senator D'Amato, came to the Senate floor in
the afternoon. He took the Senate floor and addressed the Senate for
quite some time on the issue of Whitewater.
The President has asked, as we know, the Attorney General to appoint
someone who will give us the facts. That person, Mr. Fiske, is going to
provide those facts in due time, after due and considered deliberation.
In fact, speaking of due deliberation, Mr. Fiske has now rented a
building, or a floor in a building, in Little Rock, AR. And he signed a
3-year lease on it. So we are going to have a very, very thorough
unearthing of all of the facts that relate to Whitewater.
My friend from New York, again, came yesterday, on Tuesday afternoon,
to the floor of the U.S. Senate, during the debate, on the State
Department authorization bill, and totally unrelated to the State
Department authorization bill took the time of the Senate--not much
time, 10 minutes, 15 minutes--to again discuss this Whitewater issue.
Again today, on Wednesday afternoon, as we are considering a very,
very major piece of education legislation, as we are trying to complete
this legislation by Thursday night--tomorrow night--my very good
friend, the Senator from New York, once again comes to the floor in an
attempt to turn up the heat on the Whitewater issue.
I think that we are coming to a time when we need to look back and
reflect just a little bit as to what is happening on the Whitewater
matter.
First, back in January, many Members on the other side of the aisle--
or December--were calling for, as we might recall, a special
prosecutor. Right after the President had concluded his trip or in the
middle of his trip to Europe, President Clinton asked Janet Reno, our
Attorney General, to appoint a special counsel to look into this entire
matter. Janet Reno forthwith came forward and appointed Mr. Robert
Fiske, an attorney well-known and well-respected and, I might add,
Madam President, a Republican, which shows that this President is
wanting to go forward and, as we say, unearth the facts relative to
Whitewater.
Robert Fiske, for example, had a very high tribute from the Senator
from New York who, once again, is now attempting, it appears to me, to
sort of turn up the heat on the third day in a row, and maybe tomorrow
he will come back again, maybe Friday he will come back again. Maybe
this is going to be a daily dose that the Senator from New York is
going to give us on Whitewater.
But he says about Robert Fiske, and I quote my friend from New York:
He is a man of uncompromising integrity. He will unearth
the truth for the American people.
I think that says a lot about Mr. Fiske and it certainly says a great
deal about Mr. Fiske's integrity. Not only that, but as importantly, it
says a lot about his independence in being in another party from the
President and from this administration.
I might add--and this is certainly no secret, it is public record--
Mr. Fiske, since 1980, to the best of our knowledge, has not given one
dime, no contributions of any kind to any Democrat that we can find.
Not one. In fact, $11,750 have been taken from Mr. Fiske's pocket and
disbursed, where? To my friends on the Republican side of the aisle.
Well and good. Once again, this just attests to the independence of Mr.
Robert Fiske who is now engaged in assembling a staff and beginning the
full investigation, where it should be, into Whitewater.
Madam President, the moment the President asked Janet Reno, the
Attorney General, to appoint a special counsel and she appointed that
counsel, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle said, ``Wait a
minute, that's not enough. Yes, we want an independent counsel, but at
the same time we want a congressional investigation. We want a special
or a select committee to be selected from the Senate and the House to
investigate Whitewater.''
That request, I must say, was not long on the table, or at least,
that request seemed to fade away or lose popularity, when this report
was delivered to us. This report right here. I think it weighs about 30
pounds, I am not sure. This is the Iran-Contra independent counsel
report, Madam President. It cost $37 million and took 7\1/2\ years, and
still we do not know the results nor all the facts of Iran-Contra.
Even Mr. Robert Fiske, the independent counsel that has been chosen
by the distinguished Attorney General of the United States, even as he
begins his investigation, has said, and I quote Mr. Fiske:
History shows it is difficult to conduct criminal
investigations at the same time as congressional
investigations.
That is from the special counsel, Madam President. This desire for a
congressional select committee sort of faded away. The minority leader
in the House of Representatives, Congressman Michel, says now that we
have a special counsel, we do not need this anymore. So that sort of
faded away.
But now we have a new request. It seems the ante can never quite find
its own level. The ante keeps going up and rising daily. Now we see
that there is a request for the Banking Committee in the Senate and the
Banking Committee in the House of Representatives to hold a separate
investigation on Whitewater.
Look at what happened. Our distinguished chairman, Senator Riegle,
wrote a letter to Senator D'Amato in response. Today it was in the
press. It appears that Senator D'Amato and his friends are going to
have ample opportunity within the Senate Banking Committee structure on
the normal traditional, historical, required review of the S&L
situation and how the RTC has managed these affairs. They are going to
have their day in court. They are going to get to ask questions about
this and hopefully other S&L failures.
And speaking of other S&L failures, if this one cost the taxpayers
$46 million--and I do not know what it cost; I heard every kind of
figure--we are looking at billions and billions and billions of dollars
of loss in the last decade in our S&L industry. We know that. That is
no secret. That has been publicized.
But the key factor is that almost everything our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle are asking for, this administration has
complied with. This administration has shown good faith, and now we
think it is time to get on with the very important business of the U.S.
Senate and this country.
I know that the Senate rules say you do not question motives, and I
am not questioning any Senator's motive on this floor. I have never
done that. I never want to be guilty of that. I can only conclude that
what is about to happen in this so-called Whitewater episode is that,
yes, Mr. Fiske is going to have his investigatory team, but there is
going to be a continuing hope by some--maybe not necessarily in this
Chamber or Members of this body but certainly some in this country--
that the focus of this administration and this moment of opportunity
and challenge for America is going to be taken away from health care,
it will be removed from welfare reform, we will lose our interest in
doing something about crime and personal security in America. Maybe
that is their overall hope. I would hate to see that sad result.
Maybe there are some who would like to see us do nothing and
basically fritter away these great opportunities that visit this
generation and visit this hour and visit us at this time, but I hope
not.
Madam President, I can only say that I think if we in the Senate and
the House will let Robert Fiske do his job without these distractions,
that very quickly the facts--the facts--that my friend from New York
has asked for will be unearthed, those facts will be presented and the
so-called Whitewater issue will be something of the past.
But to continue day after day taking the time of the U.S. Senate when
we are ready to receive and offer amendments and debate issues, such as
education, I only suggest: Let us save this for another day in another
forum and not constantly take the time of the U.S. Senate in order to
do it.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
____________________