[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 8 (Thursday, February 3, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                               WHITEWATER

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise once again today to bring an issue 
of concern to my colleagues' attention, a matter of urgent public 
concern which revolves around the imminent running out of the statute 
of limitations in the Whitewater/Madison matter.
  The clock is ticking. Soon the RTC will be out of time and the 
American people will be out of luck. Today is February 3, so we can 
mark off another day in the race against the ticking clock.
  Mr. President, it appears that the American people are losing that 
race and, for all intents and purposes, it is a race that the RTC is 
primed to lose.
  The RTC seems to be using an old college basketball strategy --that 
is, the four-corner stall. The purpose of the strategy is to run out 
the clock. We have a right to expect the RTC to play a fast break, as 
if there is a shot clock. If the clock does run out, the losing team 
will be the American people.
  Mr. President, the statute of limitations runs out on February 28, or 
at least that is what I have been led to believe. This means that 
anyone who is responsible for the loss of possibly millions of dollars 
of taxpayers' money will be immune from civil action.
  We are not talking about the criminal proceedings, which are a 
different issue related to the appointment of a special counsel. I am 
referring to the day when the RTC believes the statute of limitations 
on civil action will run out.
  Mr. President, do not try to get a precise answer from the RTC about 
the statute of limitations. I have been trying to pin them down now for 
weeks. The RTC's so-called review of Madison must really be a covert 
operation. Either the RTC's views pertaining to the statute of 
limitations do not officially exist or they put the answer in a code 
that is hard to crack.
  But even if the RTC ducks the issue, the bottom line is the same. 
There are now only 25 days until the time runs out; 25 days until the 
American people are denied access to the full measure of American 
justice. This is unforgivable.
  What has the RTC done to stop the ticking of the clock, to toll the 
statute of limitations in the Madison situation? In the past, it is 
interesting to note, the RTC has frequently sought voluntary agreements 
to stop the statute of limitations from running out. What are they 
doing to obtain such agreements in this situation? Are they seeking 
tolling agreements? Would that not resolve the time crunch that the RTC 
faces?
  Mr. President, the fact is the RTC will not give us an answer. They 
will not give me a straight answer. They will not give anybody in the 
Congress a straight answer, and they give us an ambiguous response.
  The statute runs out on the 28th. But how and when do we get some 
clear answers about the Madison Guaranty cleanup?
  As I stated yesterday, it now appears that the Banking Committee will 
have an opportunity to question the RTC Oversight Board directly at an 
upcoming hearing. If we cannot get a hearing specifically devoted to 
the Whitewater/Madison problem, and it appears we cannot, the RTC 
Oversight Board hearing will have to suffice.
  I will be prepared to ask pertinent questions about Whitewater and 
Madison. If the RTC must be prodded and cajoled into responsiveness, I 
am willing to do it.
  But, Mr. President, I certainly hope that this hearing is held before 
the statute runs out. It does not make much sense to hold a hearing 
after the statute runs out, and that will prevent the taxpayers from 
pursuing civil actions to recover money on their behalf.
  After February 28, there can be no meaningful oversight on this 
matter. Any discussion of this matter will simply be a history lesson. 
Once the clock ticks down and the statute runs out, any civil 
wrongdoing is, for all practical purposes, history.
  It seems that there are some who are bound and determined to pursue 
the old tactic of the four-corner stall and run out the clock.
  Just 2 days ago, the committee held an FDIC confirmation hearing. I 
asked Andrew Hove, the Acting Chairman of the FDIC, about the FDIC's 
hiring of the Rose law firm. I do not know whether the RTC ever 
retained the Rose law firm, but if they did, I think the American 
people and Congress should know. And if the Rose law firm was on the 
job, did the RTC analyze any potential conflict of interest that may 
have existed?
  Mr. President, this is not a matter of personal curiosity. The 
American people have a right to know. When the RTC Oversight Board 
appears, they will be called on to answer these and other questions. I 
will expect these officials to tell us when exactly the statute will 
run out, what action is planned to stop the ticking clock or to 
preserve the rights of taxpayers to obtain reimbursement from the 
wrongdoers, which runs well into millions of dollars.
  The statute of limitations runs out on the 28th. When will the RTC 
level with the Congress?
  In anticipation of that hearing, I will ask for a briefing from the 
RTC. I am writing to them requesting that they give us, the Banking 
Committee, a briefing. Meanwhile, time is running out for the American 
taxpayer.
  Mr. President, some would have us look the other way, but the clock 
is ticking. I think we have a right to know from the RTC whether or not 
they are attempting to get those agreements that they regularly enter 
into in order to toll the statute.
  If they were to give us the answer and the assurance that they are 
seeking to do this, it would satisfy this Senator. I would then know 
that this matter could be pursued as it should be. I would then have 
confidence and, more importantly, I believe, the American people could 
have confidence, in the fact that we have equal justice, equal justice 
for all and not justice that is applied willy-nilly, not justice that 
closes one eye and denies the American people an opportunity to see 
that things are done correctly. That is all we seek here.
  Tomorrow I will return to this floor and bring forth some of the more 
pertinent questions that I believe we have a right to have answered.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I ask my colleague from New York to 
remain on the floor because I would like to respond to some of his 
comments.
  The Senator from New York has been taking to the floor these past 
several days making an argument that is getting curiouser and 
curiouser.
  The Senator from New York has been righteously proclaiming a 
passionate belief that the statute of limitations should be extended in 
order to recover taxpayer losses in the Madison Guaranty failure.
  That is a terrific joke. I compliment the Senator from New York for 
his ability to carry it out with a straight face.
  Because the Senator from New York--just 2\1/2\ months ago, voted 
against extending the statute of limitations on suing officers and 
directors of failed S&L's like Madison.
  I say to the Senator from New York, where were you when I needed you?
  Where have you been?
  What caused this complete conversion?
  I can hardly believe my ears when I hear the Senator argue for an 
extension of the statute of limitations.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Are you asking me that question, sir?
  Mr. METZENBAUM. When I get done.
  Mr. D'AMATO. The Senator asked me to stay on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has the floor.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, The Senator from Ohio has the floor.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I thought, in good conscience----
  Mr. METZENBAUM. I demand order in the Senate. I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has the floor.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. You see, Mr. President, the Senator from New York 
voted on this very floor to strip a retroactive extension of the 
statute of limitations from an RTC funding bill.
  The Senator from New York voted not to go after Madison Guaranty, and 
hundreds of other failed thrifts.
  In short, if the Senator from New York had his way, the statute of 
limitations on Madison would have expired 2 years ago.
  I cannot for the life of me understand the Senator's logic--if the 
Senator had his way, the Madison case would have been dead and buried 2 
years ago. You can look up the Senator's vote: March 26, 1992.
  I have been fighting for the extension of the statute of limitations 
for a period of years. I have been looking for support, but I was not 
very able to get that support from the Senator from New York.
  March 26, 1992, was 26 days after the statute of limitations on 
Madison Guaranty Savings expired, and 3 weeks after the New York Times 
reported the Madison Guaranty Savings story.
  It is as plain as that. The Senator from New York voted to strip a 
retroactive extension from the bill. The Senator from New York voted to 
kill an extension that clearly would have covered Madison Guaranty 
Savings and Loan.
  For 21 months, the chance to sue Madison Guaranty Savings was nil. 
Nada. Zero. Zip. And just a couple of months ago, the Senator from New 
York voted to keep it that way.
  This Senator and many others have been pushing to extend the statute 
retroactively, not just for Madison, but for all failed thrifts--
hundreds of failed thrifts that resulted in billions of dollars of 
losses.
  But on May 13, 1993, the Senator from New York for the second time 
voted against extending the expired statute. I repeat, the Senator from 
New York, voted against extending the statute of limitations on Madison 
Guaranty. I ought to know, I offered the amendment.
  It was an amendment to the RTC funding bill which extended the 
statute from 3 to 5 years. A retroactive amendment that extended 
expired statutes of limitations on savings and loan failures that 
included Madison Guaranty. And for those who might raise the question: 
Can you extend a statute retroactively? That issue has already been 
resolved in the courts. And the answer is ``yes.''
  If not for that amendment, the Madison case would not be open today. 
The Senator from New York keeps talking about the clock ticking on this 
case. It was this Senator, however, who put that time back on the 
clock. It was the Senator from New York who would have allowed the time 
to expire 2 years ago.
  My colleague from New York and I debated my amendment on the floor. 
We disagreed. He said he thought the RTC would sue too many people.
  He said ``Let us focus our Government's energies on those people who 
conduct the egregious cases of fraud * * *''
  But now the Senator from New York claims an urgent interest in suing 
a failed thrift that caused less than one five-thousandths of 1 
percent, of all the taxpayer losses of the S&L bailout, but shows no 
interest in S&L's that cost the taxpayers billions upon billions.
  The Senator from New York brings a calendar to the floor, and marks 
off the days. But if his interest is really in protecting the U.S. 
taxpayer, where is his calendar counting down the expiration of United 
Savings Association of Texas?
  United Savings of Texas failed around the same time as Madison. 
Madison cost the taxpayers $46 million--a not insignificant amount of 
money. But, United Savings of Texas cost the taxpayers $1.6 billion.
  Time is running out on the United Savings case as well, and the 
Government is scrambling to put together a suit to recover over a half 
billion dollars for the taxpayers. The clock is ticking--ticktock, 
ticktock, ticktock, and the time is running out.
  In fact, I am told that the statute of limitations expires on the 
United Savings case on the same day as Madison.
  A half billion dollars or more is riding on the United Savings case. 
But the Senator from New York is not interested. He hears no clock 
ticking: $46 million versus $1.6 billion. Both expire the same day. 
That fact speaks volumes about the real issues at play here.
  Let me make something clear. I want to recover money from every 
failed thrift that we possibly can. That includes Madison. If the 
Government's got a case against them, I encourage them to file it.
  But I remain bewildered by the position from the Senator from New 
York: What has changed his views? Does he now think the RTC was too 
passive, rather than too aggressive? If that is his view, it is only 
recently revealed.
  According to the BNA banking report, Senator D'Amato criticized my 
amendment. I quote:

       D'Amato said that it will only invite further litigation 
     against thrift directors, many of whom are complaining that 
     they have been unjustly pursued by the RTC lawyers. D'Amato 
     said, ``this would hold thousands of people potential 
     hostages''.

  The Senator from New York has certainly traveled a long road in a 
short time.
  The Senator from New York also knows very well that the Madison case 
was investigated for 3 years in the Republican controlled RTC, and no 
suit was filed. While I am not familiar with the particulars, I have to 
believe that was a conscious, deliberate decision that there was not 
any merit in filing a suit.
  I arrive at this conclusion because I happen to know that RTC lawyers 
were not always shy about filing suit against powerful politicians and 
elected officials.
  I cannot understand why, under a Republican administration, the RTC 
would go lightly on a thrift connected to a Democratic Governor? After 
all, Governors were not beyond the pale. They sued a Republican 
Governor during this period, the Governor of Arizona.
  I also remember the Senator from New York arguing that he was uneasy 
about retroactivity, and concerned about its fairness. Of course, the 
only reason the RTC is able even to look at Madison today is because of 
a retroactive extension. The Senator now argues for a rifleshot 
retroactive extension aimed only at Madison. His concern for fairness 
has been eclipsed by his interest in politics.
  Let us just review briefly for the record, Mr. President.
  Despite the opposition of the Senator from New York, my amendment 
prevailed in the Senate in May 1993, affording the Government a renewed 
opportunity to go after directors and officers of failed thrifts like 
Madison and dozens more. My amendment was tough--it extended the 
statute of limitations in the case of fraud, gross negligence, and even 
simple negligence.
  That bill went to conference, where the Senator from New York 
continued his opposition.
  All that conference, he opposed the Senate's position on extending 
the statute. That was last November 17, a mere 2\1/2\ months ago.
  What an amazing turnaround. His Buffalo Bills should be able to 
change course so dramatically.
  Mr. President, the Senator from New York had his chance to show some 
leadership on this issue plenty of times in the past. He had his 
chance, more than once. He took a pass.
  I repeat, the RTC investigated the Madison thrift during the 
Republican administration for 3 long years and brought no charges. 
Through the efforts mainly of Democrats in this body, and over the 
opposition of the Senator from New York, we were able to pass 
legislation to give them another crack at Madison and dozens of other 
failed institutions. Again, I repeat, if there is a case against 
Madison, I will be the first to applaud its filing.
  But is the Senator from New York really interested in recovering 
taxpayer dollars from Madison, or is he preoccupied with a President 
who has become progressively more popular with the public, and 
increasing effective in promoting a domestic agenda which the Senator 
from New York opposes?
  The American people need to understand--as the President's approval 
ratings climb higher, the attacks on him will sink lower.
  And I say to my colleagues, it isn't gonna work. This President is 
fulfilling the promises he made to the American people. This President 
is promoting a program to help people's lives. This President is 
working on problems that are real, and problems that have been 
neglected by 12 years of veto, after veto, after veto.
  And now, if the junior Senator from New York is really sincere in his 
desire to recover taxpayer dollars, then I am prepared to join him in 
his call. But not for just one institution. For every failed thrift. 
Let us not stop at $46 million. I will support an amendment that 
extends the statute of limitations for any wrongdoing at any thrift, 
including Madison, for 1 more year, 2 more years--you name it. Whatever 
you want, I am willing to extend the statute of limitations across the 
board.
  If that is the Senator's position, then we can do business. If the 
Senator cannot accept that offer, then one is apt to conclude that his 
speeches are about rhetoric rather than results, about politics rather 
than public policy.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lieberman). The Senator from New York is 
recognized.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let us get the record clear. The Senator 
has not come and asked that there be a special extension of law as 
relates to Whitewater/Madison. This Senator has not come down to the 
floor and said that we should extend it retroactively or in the future 
for Whitewater/Madison.
  I have not changed my position. I did not come down here and say, 
``Oh, no; let's apply one standard of law for Whitewater/Madison.'' 
That is what the argument of the Senator from Ohio implies. I said let 
us see that the present law is enforced. Why can we not be told when 
the statute of limitations ends? Why does it take us 3 weeks to get an 
answer from the RTC? Why the stalling? Why the delays? What actions 
have they taken? We do not have a right to know? Are they considering 
obtaining that which they have done in thousands of cases--an 
extension, a voluntary extension of the statute?
  Generally, let me tell you, if that does not occur, what the RTC 
often does is to file a broad-based lawsuit and complaint, and 
amendment later. I am not suggesting that they file that suit, or that 
they sue everybody who has been a part or parcel to Whitewater and/or 
to Madison. What I am suggesting is that we have a right to know what 
they intend to do and what they are doing.
  We do not even have a Director of the RTC. Mysteriously, the 
President's nominee was pulled. Was he pulled because maybe he was 
looking into some of the files? Where are those files? And I am not 
talking about criminal files now, I am talking about civil proceedings.
  Do not try to conclude and say to the Senator that I want another 
standard of law applied. I do not. I do not come here and ask to make 
Madison a special case. I say we should have equal treatment under the 
law. I say we have a right to know whether or not they are going to 
seek that voluntary agreement, an agreement that they seek in hundreds 
and hundreds of cases every single year.
  And, by the way, if there is a bank in Texas that has a liability and 
costs the American taxpayers $1.5 billion and there may be $500 million 
in claims, let the RTC file that lawsuit too. If they want to get a 
voluntary extension, let them do that. Let them do what is appropriate.
  But I have to tell you, to come and say to me, ``Oh, Senator, you 
want a special application of the law here and not in any other case,'' 
is just not the case. I want the same application of the same law in 
this case as there would be in any other. It seems to me that we have a 
right to ask the RTC what they are doing; what they know and what they 
do not know.
  I have been accused of trying to question or somehow impugn the 
integrity of the special counsel, Mr. Fiske. In no way do I intend to 
do that. His investigation has nothing to do with the civil aspects. In 
no way are we attempting to call witnesses that would somehow prejudice 
the prosecution of the criminal case. So do not let that be said.
  By God, we have a right to know, are they reaching out to get the 
statute extended, and if they are not, why not? What conclusions have 
they come to?
  The clock is ticking. It is 25 days to go. Some would like this 
matter to slip by. On the subject of various votes on the statute of 
limitation, I make no apologies for saying that I do not encourage 
litigation as a general practice or rule where it is not merited. But I 
simply say, let us do in the Madison situation what has been done in 
other cases and give us the facts. We have a right to the facts. If 
those who want to obfuscate it by attacking my previous votes as it 
relates to whether or not you can extend the statute of limitations, 
that is only mere obfuscation. It does not go to the merits of what I 
have asked the RTC for.
  I have to tell you, I am concerned that the Senator is attempting to 
imply that. I have not asked for another standard. I have asked for the 
same standard, not a different standard. If I were to seek out an 
extension for Whitewater alone, my colleague would be absolutely right 
in saying ``How can you apply the law in this manner; how would you 
make fish of one and fowl of another?''
  I have not done that. I said, ``Give us the facts. Tell us when 
precisely the statute runs out. Tell us what actions you contemplate 
taking. What are you doing? Where is your investigation as it relates 
to this civil matter? Are you attempting to get a tolling of the 
statute?''
  You can attack me all you want. If you think you are going to keep me 
quiet on this, you are wrong.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I certainly would never attempt to 
keep my friend from New York quiet. I want to point out to him, and I 
want to make it clear, that when I tried to extend the statute of 
limitations in the past, one of the leaders in that opposition was the 
Senator from New York.
  If he had cooperated at that time, we would not have this problem 
before us today. The only reason we can go for another 3 weeks, 
approximately, is because I was successful in getting an amendment 
through over the opposition of the Senator from New York. And the 
Senator from New York at that time was worried about who was going to 
be sued and whether it was fair. This Senator said you have ripped off 
the American people. If you have, you ought to pay the money back. You 
ought to pay it back promptly. And the Government should not have to 
sue you, but if they do, they should not be precluded from doing so by 
reason of a statute of limitations.

  That is the position I have taken here day in and day out when this 
issue has been before us. This is about the third or fourth or fifth 
time we have debated it in the Senate, and I regret to admit that each 
time the distinguished Senator from New York, who is the ranking member 
of the Banking Committee, was not with me. I think once he voted with 
me just before his election. But other times he has not been with me. 
He has opposed me. He has fought it. Now he comes here, and I say with 
unclean hands, to say that there is something special about this 
particular case and we ought to be extending the statute. I am saying 
extend the statute as long as you want. I will extend it for 2 years or 
5 years or permanent, across the board, for all savings and loans. But 
do not try to make political hay out of this one company where the loss 
is something like $46 million as compared to just one I mentioned, the 
one in Texas of $1.6 billion and the statute may very well expire about 
the same time on that one.
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me again say that my colleague from 
Ohio and, indeed, the wisdom of the Senate in the past was to provide 
an extension for 2 years to cover this and other cases as well. His 
views carried. That happens. There are those cases where reasonable 
people can and do disagree. I did not carry on because he was 
successful in moving to that point. I do not seek an extension of the 
statute of limitations as it relates to Whitewater. I have never 
suggested that. Never. What I have said is two things. Number one, tell 
us precisely when the statute of limitations expires. And to this date 
we have been led to believe that it may expire on February 28. We have 
been led to believe--this is the date if you read the letters that have 
come to us--and it took 3 weeks, 3 weeks to get any response. Is there 
any wonder why we are concerned? When eight Senators signed a letter, 
eight Members of the Congress, requesting basic information and it took 
3 weeks. And we got an answer only after the Chairman of the Banking 
Committee interceded with a call to say, ``My Gosh, why don't you 
answer?'' Only then do we get a perfunctory answer that really does not 
answer the questions.
  And then as to a tolling agreement, which is something that is 
entered into regularly, we want to know what, if anything, they are 
doing to pursue that. If you read the letter that came--and I do not 
intend to read it again into the Record--from the Deputy Secretary, Mr. 
Altman, who is nominally in charge, or was in charge in the absence of 
there being a head of the RTC, he says tolling agreements are regularly 
entered into. He does not tell us whether or not they are going to 
pursue it in this instance, whether or not there is any reason, whether 
or not they have discontinued. The letter avoids answers to any of 
those questions. We have a right to have those questions answered 
because this is a sensitive matter.
  As it relates to any other institution, be assured that I certainly 
would not oppose a tolling agreement, and in lieu of that the kind of 
litigation that would ensue if, for example, the bank in Texas refused 
to enter into that tolling agreement, because I am sure that is what 
the RTC would do. But I think we have a right to be briefed and to be 
told what course of conduct is being taken because, to be quite candid 
with you, I do not think that the RTC has been acting with us in a good 
faith. They have had a four-corner stall, and I say look at the record 
and that is what you see.
  So I am not asking for an extension of the statute. I do not 
apologize for my previous positions in saying in some cases what we 
have had is the RTC going after just deep pockets regardless of whether 
or not a board member or director had served well and caused no harm to 
the institution. I do not say that there is anybody who has committed 
any misdeeds in this case. I just want the facts before the statute 
runs out and before we get, ``I'm sorry, it's too late. We can't, we 
didn't know,''. That is all we want. We want the facts.
  Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I wonder if my friend from New York would 
yield for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair was under the impression the Senator 
had yielded.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I have yielded, but I would try to answer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has the floor.
  Mr. PRYOR. First, the Senator from Arkansas would like to pose a 
question through the Chair as to the approximate length of time the 
distinguished Senator from New York has served on the Senate Banking 
Committee?
  Mr. D'AMATO. I am entering my third term. I have been on the 
committee since then.
  Mr. PRYOR. So over a decade. The Senator from New York has watched, 
as all of us have watched, the savings and loan debacle--hundreds of 
S&L's and banks going by the wayside with taxpayers of America losing 
billions and billions of dollars. And here we come to an S&L in the 
State of Arkansas that perhaps lost some $46 million. The question I 
pose to the Senator from New York, how many other times has the Senator 
from New York requested the RTC to give a full-fledged briefing on a 
single particular savings and loan?
  Mr. D'AMATO. I would answer my colleague's question with another 
question. How many times have we had a sitting Governor of a State who 
is alleged to have borrowed $1 million and not paid back those moneys 
to that savings and loan? How many times have we had the No. 3 person, 
Mr. Hubbell--let me answer --the No. 3 person in the Justice 
Department, whose father-in-law is alleged to have borrowed hundreds 
and hundreds of thousands of dollars from that savings and loan, not to 
mention others in the White House who were tied directly or indirectly 
to Madison Savings & Loan and to Whitewater? So I would say to you if 
we are going to have a conspiracy of silence, that is fine. My 
colleagues can go ahead and do that. But I am not about to do that. I 
am going to ask the questions because they should be asked. I want the 
facts.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, if I might respond, I believe the Senator 
from New York now might be misstating the facts, a misstatement that 
the then Governor of the State of Arkansas, now the President of the 
United States, borrowed $1 million.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I did not say the ``then'' Governor. I said the Governor 
from Arkansas. I believe that is one of the things that has been 
raised, that the present Governor may have borrowed $1 million. I do 
not know whether that is true or not. I would like to get the facts.
  Now, let us understand it. Is it true or is it not true that Mr. 
Hubbell, who has recused himself since his father-in-law borrowed 
$500,000 or $600,000 from the institution and did not pay it back? I do 
not know. If you ask why I am interested, that is why. It is rather 
unique.
  Mr. PRYOR. My question is simple. I am asking why such a sudden 
interest after 12 years as a member of the Banking Committee, why is 
this the first time the Senator from New York has raised a question 
about a particular savings and loan on the floor of the Senate?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Because this is the first time that we have ever had a 
situation where we have had so many people in prominent places, in 
positions where it has been alleged that there may have been improper 
use of the resources of Madison through Whitewater and improper use, or 
at least failure to collect moneys from a savings and loan. People who 
are in high office and/or whose relatives are in very high office. That 
is why. I do not think my interest is unusual. I do not think it is 
unreasonable. But there has not been brought to my knowledge or to my 
attention any similar situation. That is why.
  Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
  Mr. D'AMATO. If that is a mystery, then I plead guilty. It should be 
a mystery to most Americans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has the floor.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, my point is pretty simple, I think. I am 
going to sit down because I am going to not continue to come over and 
answer, or attempt to set the record straight each day the Senator from 
New York comes to the floor.
  He has already taken about 9 pages of the Senate's Record earlier 
this week, Mr. President, on just Whitewater. He spoke for 6 pages 
worth of Congressional Record back on May 13 trying to make certain, as 
the Senator from Ohio has pointed out, that we did not extend the 
statute of limitations from 3 to 5 years. And in fact he made such an 
impassioned speech on May 13, 1992, he convinced me that he was right. 
He was very persuasive. I voted with him. I was one of 6 or 7 Democrats 
who joined my colleague from New York on that side of the aisle. He 
gave a very, very persuasive talk that day.
  But, Mr. President, let me just say that the Senator from New York is 
using the floor of the Senate to smear the reputations of some good 
people. The Attorney General of the United States has appointed an 
independent counsel, an independent counsel who is at this moment 
forming a staff, at this moment moving into offices, at this moment 
beginning this investigation.

  If the Senator from New York wants the facts, why does he not wait on 
his friend who is in fact the special prosecutor to present the facts 
to the Congress? And then at that time the Congress will make a 
determination as to whether to proceed further into the Whitewater 
matter.
  He is smearing good names on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and this 
Senate was not created for that purpose. We should allow the 
prosecutor, the special counsel, to go forward with this investigation.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I want to honor the request of the 
Senator from Massachusetts about not unduly delaying the proceedings 
here, but I cannot resist as a Senator from Arkansas making a couple of 
what I believe are propitious comments about what has just transpired 
on the floor of the Senate.
  First of all, I had never heard of Whitewater until the summer of 
1992 when it surfaced in the campaign. I do not recall ever having 
heard of Madison Guaranty until the former President of that company 
was indicted, tried and in approximately 20 minutes acquitted.
  So, all I know about these matters is what I have read in the 
newspapers. One thing I do know is that I have hardly read one new 
single revelation in the past 3 months, and I have read most of the 
things that appeared at least in the local press which is generally a 
rehash of what I read 3 months ago just different paragraphs and 
different people saying it.
  I know a lot of the people involved in both of those matters, some 
not so well, and some very well. I can tell you that Bill and Hillary 
Clinton have been very dear friends of mine and Senator Pryor's for 
many, many years for all the obvious reasons: First, we like them; 
second, we belong to the same political party; and third, we have 
attended every frog gigging and chitlin fry in Arkansas together for 
the past 20 years. But we like them, and we trust them
  Vince Foster was one of the finest men I ever knew. I saw a little 
chart from the Republican Policy Committee the other day, and it beat 
anything I have ever seen. If I had not been a trial lawyer for 18 
years before I got into this business, maybe I would not have been so 
offended. It pointed out that Shella Anthony, who works at the Justice 
Department, is a sister of Vince Foster. It pointed out that she is the 
wife of a former Congressman, Beryl Anthony. Now, what conclusion are 
we supposed to draw from that? What does that mean? They listed some 
people who had hardly ever shaken hands with Bill Clinton.
  The first thing I learned in law school and the principle that made 
an indelible impression on me is the presumption of innocence. Every 
commentator in the country, every time they cite maybe some alleged 
ethical misstep, possible criminal misstep in this matter, they are 
quick to say ``but there is no evidence that the President and first 
lady knew anything about this at the time.''
  My friend from New York, and he is my friend, has been on this floor 
now 3 days in a row with his little calendar and saying he is coming 
back every day until someone answers his questions about the statute of 
limitations.
  Certainly, I cannot think of a more appropriate response to that than 
the one the Senator from Ohio gave this afternoon, and that is to 
remind this body that the most steadfast opponent of extending the 
statute of limitation on civil wrongdoing in these RTC cases has been 
the Senator from New York. What we have here is a death bed conversion. 
It is hardly even a thinly veiled effort to keep this Whitewater thing 
as hot as possible.
  I can tell you something else that is not so thinly veiled either, 
and that is that we have a young dynamic, intelligent, tenacious, 
determined President who has promised the American people a new way of 
doing things, a new agenda, and whose approval rating, despite an 
absolutely unending plethora of adverse stories about Whitewater, 
continues to climb, and is now at 60 percent, which is higher than 
Ronald Reagan was at the same point in his presidency. He is formidable 
indeed.
  We have the lowest inflation rate, the lowest interest rate, the 
highest growth rate, the biggest deficit reduction, all because the 
President has had the determination to say to the American people there 
are only two ways to deal with the deficit and they are both very 
unpopular, two ways: Raise taxes and cut spending. And you have big 
powerful forces opposed to each of those things.
  And he won his deficit reduction package by one vote in the Senate 
and one vote in the House, and as a result you heard his State of the 
Union address saying that for the first time since Harry Truman the 
deficit will be headed south for 3 consecutive years. It is an 
incredible thing. As a matter of fact, his first year in office was 
incredible. It got off to a rocky start. But he is a quick study. I 
have watched him pick up on things quickly all of my life. He is one of 
the brightest men I ever knew.
  He is having fabulous success, and the people of America, even when 
they do not agree with him, approve of his determination and his 
tenacity, and I have noticed as his popularity continues to climb there 
are those who try to accelerate the public discussion of Whitewater
  Is there any doubt in anybody's mind about what that is all about? Of 
course, there is not. Is there any doubt in anybody's mind that there 
are people even in the United States Senate who will try to keep that 
thing on the front burner until 1996? None.
  Mr. President, this is the first word I have said on this. I am not 
privy to any of the details other than what I have read in the paper, 
but I can tell you there are those who relish it for political reasons.
  I did not hear anybody come to the floor with a calendar when George 
Bush's son was accused of improprieties in an S&L out in Denver. I had 
the utmost empathy for that young man's mother and father, the 
President and First Lady. I do not care who they are. If it is your 
child it puts an entirely different slant on it. If you want to get my 
attention, just bring up one of my 3 children. I am personally pleased 
it all turned out the way it did for Neil Bush.
  I just cringe when I think of the agony some parents go through 
because of the plight of a child and especially when that child is the 
son of the President.
  But nobody came to the floor with a calendar then. So we all know 
what is going on. Maybe we ought to just let it go. I think the 
American people know what is going on.

                          ____________________