[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 9 (Friday, February 4, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      WHITEWATER/MADISON COUNTDOWN

  Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, today is February 4. We can mark off 
yet another day in the Whitewater/Madison countdown.
  February 4. Only 24 days remain until February 28. That is the 
supposed legal deadline for the RTC to recover the taxpayers' money 
from those who may be responsible for its failure or for contributing 
to the loss of millions of dollars to the taxpayers.
  The Whitewater affair is a ticking time bomb that will explode at the 
end of this month, injuring millions of American taxpayers whose rights 
to get back federally insured deposits from the Madison Savings & Loan 
will come to an end.
  After the 28th it will not matter. It will not matter if Madison was 
treated like a personal piggy bank to dispense money to powerful people 
in the State of Arkansas.
  After an unrelenting call for a full and fair investigation of the 
facts surrounding the failure of Madison Savings & Loan and its 
involvement with Whitewater Development Co., the Justice Department 
finally appointed a special counsel. It took, I might say, a number of 
people on the other side of the aisle who said, ``My Gosh, let us do 
this. Let us not create this aura that possibly there is something that 
is being hidden.''
  I might say that it was my friend, the distinguished Senator from New 
York, who I think finally made the call for a special counsel that 
struck home, because I do not believe there is going to be any criminal 
wrongdoing that they are going to find as it relates to the President, 
to Mrs. Clinton. I just do not believe that to be the case, and my 
distinguished friend said that.
  But it is important to clear up the cloud of doubt, and so that 
process has begun. And while we have special counsel looking into 
possible criminal activity--and I am rather certain and hope that he 
will find none--no one is looking out for the taxpayer. We mix the two 
up.
  I come down in the Chamber and I say, listen, what is taking place on 
RTC? What are they doing to recover any potential liabilities?
  We have 24 days to go. It took nearly 3 weeks to get a letter from 
Mr. Altman responding to some basic questions. And the letter says 
nothing. The letter does not say we have so many people who are looking 
at potential suits that might be brought. The letter does not say we 
are extending the statute and looking to toll it.
  By the way, let me again explain this. In thousands of cases that the 
RTC has brought, they have used or threatened to use tolling 
agreements. And the failure of getting a tolling agreement is that the 
statute may run out. The alternative, unless you enter into this 
agreement voluntarily we will commence a suit, a broad-based suit 
making many, many allegations against you will be filed in order to 
protect the taxpayers' interests, and therefore you should enter into 
this agreement.
  I have asked Mr. Altman to let us know whether or not such a tolling 
agreement has been sought, and by whom it is sought against. No answer. 
No answer.
  Now, the RTC is not the special prosecutor, and the special 
prosecutor, indeed, may come in with his report 1 year from now, 9 
months from now, well after the statute of limitations. It is not going 
to help anybody.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if the Senator from New York would yield for 
a question?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from New York has brought up the issue of 
the special prosecutor, and that brings to mind the question of 
congressional oversight. As the Senator from New York recalls, Sam 
Ervin, the late Senator Sam Ervin conducted hearings on Watergate at 
the same time Archibald Cox was conducting one on Watergate. The 
question is, Should not Congress be given the opportunity to have 
oversight of the process just as we saw in the Watergate issue?
  Mr. D'AMATO. There is absolutely no doubt. The two do not conflict. 
Some would have you think that this would impede somehow the special 
prosecutor's investigation. We certainly would not be calling witnesses 
and people who might possibly be defendants. We would be examining the 
process and what, if anything, has been done, what files, if any, have 
been made available, what problems have they encountered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I wonder why it would not be good for 
the administration and the President to support this, because it would 
lead to a quick result, and the worst possible outcome would be for 
this to drag out slowly. We have seen 3 or 4 months go by already. We 
have seen rumors. We have seen the innuendoes distracting us from the 
real business of Government.
  So I wonder if the Senator from New York would not agree that the 
best way to get this issue behind us is to get the issues out in the 
open, and while the special prosecutor proceeds, the appropriateness of 
having congressional oversight would, I would certainly think, be 
appropriate.
  Mr. D'AMATO. There is no doubt in my mind that my good friend from 
Alaska has really struck the essence of this. If we were to have the 
kind of oversight hearing that would make a thorough public accounting, 
an accounting to the Congress as to what, if anything, has been done to 
bring suit against whoever might be liable in this matter, what has 
been done to preserve the taxpayers' rights as it relates to this 
matter, what problems do they face in connection with this situation, 
then I think we could put this matter behind us.
  It would not be necessary for this Senator to come to the floor in an 
attempt to find out what every Member of the Congress has a right to 
find out. When we send a letter, two letters, to Mr. Altman and it is 
only after the chairman of the Banking Committee finally calls that we 
get a letter. The letter of February 1, sent to me which does not 
address any of the issues or questions raised with respect to 
Whitewater but acknowledges that, yes, we have entered into tolling 
agreements.
  That is not answering the basic questions that we have a right to now 
know.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we heard so much relative to the role 
of the independent counsel to look at criminal issues only and that 
there is really no necessity of oversight from Congress. But I would 
ask my friend from New York in the public record we know that there is 
$45 million to $47 million of taxpayers' money in the Madison S&L case 
in bailout funds that were involved. Would that not make it Congress 
business and clearly in the public's business?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Clearly. This is a statutory requirement that talks 
about the RTC reporting to the banking Committees in both the Senate 
and the House twice a year. We have not had a report since March of 
last year. But some ask, why the interest in this case. They say ``You 
have not asked in any other case.'' I said where do you have a 
situation where you have the No. 3 person in the Justice Department 
whose father-in-law is reported to have received a $500,000 or $600,000 
loan and has not paid it back?
  I have been told that the present Governor of Arkansas received loans 
amounting to about $1 million from the same institution and did not pay 
them back or a substantial amount of it back. What efforts have been 
made to collect it, if any? Why? Is that true or is it not true? Do we 
have a right to know?
  Are we going to say, by the way, as some have had said, Senator, you 
want to extend the statute of limitations in this case and you voted 
against extensions in previous areas. I do not want to extend the 
statute of limitations. I think this case should be handled like any 
and all other cases; no different. It should not be swept under the 
rug. We should not place Mr. Altman in a very precarious position. Here 
is Mr. Altman, a Presidential appointment, Under Secretary of the 
Treasury, respected individual, appointed by the President, and he now 
is in charge of the very agency that has to be conducting an 
investigation as it relates to conduct that touches on the President 
and Mrs. Clinton and other key administration figures.
  There may be absolutely no wrongdoing. I do not think there is any 
criminal wrongdoing. I will say that right now for the Record.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Would the Senator not agree that there are more issues 
here than the issue of whether crimes were committed? I doubt very much 
if that is the case. But there are conflict of interest issues and 
questions here. There are ethical issues. There is pressure on State 
regulators as far as that being an issue. They may not have violated 
the letter of the law. But certainly the spirit has been left in 
question.
  I wonder as well if my friend from New York would feel comfortable 
leaving this matter simply to a special prosecutor. We have recently 
seen the results of Mr. Walsh's Iran-Contra investigation. I think it 
was the $34 million, I guess, and how many months was it since 1987?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Years.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It was years.
  Here we are prepared to go into another special prosecutor with no 
balance from congressional oversight. While I have the highest 
admiration for Mr. Fiske, by the same token, the question of an 
appropriate congressional oversight I think is lacking here, and the 
justification for it, as the Senator from New York and I have 
discussed, is the fact that Madison S&L is a taxpayer bailout of some 
$47 million.
  So it would seem that we should have the initiative to take this 
responsibility so that we can encourage the orderly process of the 
investigation to move on two tracks, and so we can get the issues 
behind us and the executive branch can move on.
  Mr. D'AMATO. The Senator is absolutely correct. We should not allow 
the fact that the special prosecutor who has been appointed for the 
primary purposes of looking into criminal conduct and not civil 
liabilities, and will not have a report to us for months, well after 
the 28th, that we should not allow that to stop us from carrying out 
our duties and our obligations. Some people say we should wait. It 
comes in with a report on something entirely different, and has nothing 
to do as it relates to any civil liabilities or potential claims that 
may be waived as a result of our looking the other way.
  Madam President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes and fifty seconds.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder, Madam President, if I can ask for a 
clarification relative to the statute of limitations.
  It is my understanding--I may stand corrected by the Senator from New 
York--that the RTC took over Madison February 28, 1989. There was a 
period of 3 years for civil claims from that time. There was a 5-year 
time from the takeover occurring for willful misconduct and a 10-year 
timeframe for criminal acts in criminal causes. I am told ordinarily 
that there is an automatic tolling or an extension in cases where there 
was reason to believe that the RTC had not completed its entire 
investigation.
  As the Senator has pointed out, I commend him for it, with the 
February 28 date rapidly approaching, is he aware of any efforts of the 
RTC to actually obtain a tolling agreement from the Rose law firm and 
other potential responsible parties?
  Mr. D'AMATO. No. That is exactly the point we are making here.
  Madam President, I do not understand why it is that we cannot be told 
whether or not the RTC is actively pursuing the tolling arrangements 
which they have done hundreds and hundreds of times, and they do it as 
a matter of standard procedure.
  What is so different? Why should these people be treated differently 
with Whitewater as opposed to anyone else, or Madison? That is what we 
are really saying. It is frustrating having people come in to obfuscate 
the issue. That is what has been done to date.
  Second, let me say this in conclusion, I think it absolutely unfair 
and not right for Mr. Altman, a high ranking political appointee, to be 
placed in the position where he has to consider what course of action 
the RTC should pursue. If there ever is a case where he should 
disqualify himself and see to it that we have someone who can pursue 
this who is not a member of the administration, to pursue this in a 
fair manner, it certainly is in this case.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I could ask one very quick question. If the tolling 
agreements cannot be promptly reached within the timeframe that we 
have, will the potential responsible parties say in the Madison case, 
will the RTC file claims against these parties to protect interests of 
the taxpayers being cut short on February 28?
  Mr. D'AMATO. That is generally the procedure where this is a refusal 
by the potential defendant or respondent in a civil suit, to extend the 
toll. Why, then what takes place is a broad-based suit is brought 
against those people who have potential liability. That is the other 
question.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. There is no explanation as to why that has not been 
done in this case?
  Mr. D'AMATO. We have no information as to whether or not they are 
seeking a tolling agreement, whether there has been an arrangement; 
whether people are reaching out; whether or not in lieu of the failure 
of getting that that they will bring that kind of suit they brought 
before to preserve the taxpayers' interests and rights.
  Mr. MURKOSWKI. I thank my friend from New York for responding. I 
think my colleagues will agree that there is a great deal of 
information that should be forthcoming to this body, as well as a 
special prosecutor, and hopefully there will be consideration of an 
oversight.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time remaining is 1 minute 10 seconds.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I will conclude by paraphrasing Sgt. Joe Friday: All I 
want is the facts. That is pretty simple. The clock is ticking. It 
continues to tick. We are not going to come back here until Monday. We 
can mark off, effectively, Saturday and Sunday. I will not do it now. I 
will wait until Monday. That will leave us, effectively, 21 days to go. 
If those people who are concerned about this, my bringing this forth on 
the Senate floor, think I am not going to come back, they are mistaken. 
I will come back every day that the Senate is in session to continue 
the countdown and to ask the questions: Why not the facts? We want the 
facts. The people are entitled to the facts.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the RTC be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 Resolution Trust Corporation,

                                                 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.

                          ____________________