[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 11 (Tuesday, February 8, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
MADISON GUARANTY
Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, last week I took the floor in response
to some statements by the junior Senator from New York. I described my
friend's daily speeches as getting ``curiouser and curiouser,'' a
description I lifted from a prominent work of literary fiction.
In fact, the Senator's daily speeches, in my opinion, each represent
a chapter in a completely new and original work of fiction. I call it
``Alfonse in Wonderland.''
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I make a point of personal privilege. I
believe rule 19 has been violated. I would ask for a ruling from the
Chair? I did not know we got into this business of describing a
Senator's conduct in a manner using Senators' names in a pejorative
way--``Alfonse in Wonderland.'' I think that has crossed the line. I
ask for a ruling.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ruling will be the Senators should address
each other through the Chair and in the third person.
Mr. METZENBAUM. I certainly have done that.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me ask if it is appropriate----
Mr. METZENBAUM. I have the floor.
Mr. D'AMATO. I ask for a ruling from the Chair, is it appropriate to
address somebody and refer to another colleague--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has the floor.
Mr. D'AMATO. Another colleague as ``Alfonse in Wonderland?'' Now is
that appropriate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has the floor.
Mr. METZENBAUM. I have the floor.
Mr. D'AMATO. I ask for a ruling as it relates to the comments, and I
will ask the clerk to read them back to the Chair. Was that not a
violation of rule 19?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will withhold until we get a
ruling.
Mr. D'AMATO. Yes, I would like that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Parliamentarian tells the Chair they need
to do some research on this issue. During that time, the Senator from
Ohio will continue to control the floor.
Mr. METZENBAUM. I thank the Chair.
Mr. D'AMATO. Thank you.
Mr. METZENBAUM. I might say to the Chair, I made no violation of the
rules. I know the rules of the Senate. I just talked about certain
speeches being what I think they are, ``Alfonse in Wonderland.''
Day after day, the junior Senator, with furrowed brow, tells us of
his heartfelt concern for the hapless taxpayer as the statute of
limitations runs out in the Madison Guaranty matter.
He hints at dark motives on the part of RTC lawyers; he suggests
possible wrongdoing on the part of prominent Arkansans; he alludes to
serious improprieties committed by Government officials. He deplores
the footdragging and delay that he imagines occurring in this
investigation.
Quite an impressive set of concerns for somebody who for over 2 years
never gave this suddenly grave matter a moment's notice. Quite a
transformation from somebody who voted time and again to shield and
protect from prosecution the very people he now describes as such
nefarious characters.
Again, the Senator voted to prevent and preclude the Government from
filing any civil charges whatsoever against anyone involved in the
Madison failure. That is a fact. That is irrefutable. The Senator voted
to close the door on this matter as many as three times over the past 2
years.
And the Senator must have known the effect of his actions. After all,
the great paper from his home State, the New York Times, carried a
front page story all about the Madison situation on March 7, 1992. Was
there a flurry of speeches or a blizzard of letters from the Senator
from New York at that time? Nothing. Here is the way the Senator from
New York reacted to this news. He voted 3 weeks later to allow the
statute of limitations in the Madison case to expire.
The Senator from New York voted to shield the directors and officers
of Madison from all harm--as well as thousands of other S and L
executives too numerous to mention.
Since then, the Senator has stepped through the looking glass, and
into a whole new world.
Suddenly, the possible expiration of the statute of limitations
became important to him--not across the board; not for all the savings
and loans who have ripped off billions upon billions upon billions of
dollars from the people of this country, but for one thrift: Madison
Guaranty, this thrift with $47 million in losses.
Do not misinterpret me. Do not misunderstand me. It is important to
me too because $47 million is a lot of money, and it is taxpayer money
unless we can make someone pay it back. But the Senator from New York
is interested only in this one thrift to the exclusion of all others.
The record shows that. In fact, his record shows he did not give a hoot
about this thrift until a couple of weeks ago.
Remember, some 10 weeks ago he voted to shut down any investigation
or prosecution in the Madison matter. When I finish I hope he would
explain that vote.
Last week I asked the Senator why he was not worried about the
statute expiring at the 1,000 other failed thrifts. Why only Madison
Guaranty? Is there a political interest in this? Not a concern for the
taxpayers, but just a political interest? Why is he not interested in
the possible expiration of the statute at thrifts whose statutes expire
on the same day as Madison Guaranty, thrifts like the United Savings
and Loan Association of Texas?
I remind the junior Senator from New York that United Savings is
certainly worth worrying about. Its failure cost the taxpayers not $47
million, but $l.6 billion. That is 35 times more than Madison Guaranty.
Its statute of limitations expires on February 28.
I ask the Senator from New York; have you written the Government and
asked any--I repeat any-- questions about United Savings Association of
Texas or about its statute of limitations?
We all know the junior Senator from New York is fond of using props
to help make his points during debate on the floor. He brings with him
a big calendar showing how many days are left until the Madison statute
expires. But if his concern is the taxpayers' money, his big calendar
on Madison confuses an important point because the statute on Madison
is only one of many which expire at the end of this month.
Let me say to the Senator--and I would like his attention on this--if
the Senator wants to extend the statute of limitations on all savings
and loans, this Senator will join him, and I think we can pass it
unanimously on the floor of the Senate. I am prepared to join him in
that effort.
Mr. D'AMATO. Is that a question?
Mr. METZENBAUM. When I get done. Are you prepared to say yes or no?
Mr. D'AMATO. I am prepared to make a response to your question
without dilatory tactics, if that is the question. The Senator once
before asked if I would move to extend the statute of limitations with
respect to this matter alone, and I said I would not. That was not my
intent. If the Senator is asking whether or not I would be willing to
support legislation that extends to all of the instances retroactively,
I would have to say that in good conscience I could not support that. I
do not mean to intrude on your time. If you want, at this time or
later, I will explain why.
Mr. METZENBAUM. I appreciate the candor of the Senator's response.
But I want to say that I am prepared to join with the Senator from New
York to extend the statute of limitations so that all of these savings
and loans, officers and directors who took off with the taxpayers'
dollars, can be held accountable.
Mr. D'AMATO. I would say to my friend and colleague that possibly if
we could work out appropriate language to keep those people whose only
liability would be not by their conduct or misconduct, but as a result
of their mere presence on the board, some of who afterward were being
sued, I would consider that. I think that might be--if we could come up
with appropriate language. I will ask our staffs to see if we cannot do
that.
I do not know if we can get it done in time. But I will certainly
look at that.
Mr. METZENBAUM. I am prepared to extend the statute retroactively to
make the same law that is operable at the present time, no limitations,
no changes, just extend it retroactively. We have the right under the
court's decisions to extend the statute retroactively. I am prepared
and will tell my staff to present you with a bill before the afternoon
is over to extend it retroactively. If you will join with me, I will go
to the majority leader, and I would hope you would go to the minority
leader, and I think we can pass that piece of legislation--it would be
very simple--yet this afternoon.
Mr. D'AMATO. Let me say to my colleague that I entertain your offer
in good faith. And I will be happy to look at it. I have a certain
reservation which I have stated previously. I would not want the
Madison matter to change because I do not believe that it should be
treated any differently than any other.
I tell that to my colleague and I hope you believe that.
Mr. METZENBAUM. I understand treated differently--excuse me. I
believe the rules require me to address the Chair.
Mr. D'AMATO. I apologize to the Chair.
Mr. METZENBAUM. I will ask through the Chair whether or not you are
talking about some variation in extending the statute or were you
willing just to extend the statute, the same statute that is presently
in operation, and extend it retroactively so it covers all the savings
and loans?
Mr. D'AMATO. I have to review that. But it is certainly something
that I will review, and I indicate to my colleague I will look at it. I
do have certain reservations. I have stated them before. But we will
look at them.
Mr. METZENBAUM. I say to my colleague that we will present the
Senator from New York with a draft of such legislation within the hour,
before 5 o'clock. I would hope that I could have a response by 6
o'clock. It will not be complicated legislation. We know the deal.
Let me talk about taxpayers dollars and what is involved here as
compared to other losses that are being suffered by the RTC.
If we were to compare the loss from United Savings of Texas, which
cost 35 times the losses of Madison, we would be taking the calendar
such as my colleague from New York has on display over there, and that
would be United Savings of Texas. Whereas the amount involved with
respect to Madison Guaranty--and this is also a calendar--would be
about the size of this card.
So what we are talking about is, do we really want to protect the
taxpayers' interest or do we just want to make a political deal out of
it with respect to Madison Guaranty? Why does not the Senator from New
York have 24 calendars, each calendar representing one of the months
since 1992 when Madison Guaranty's statute first expired? Why was not
my colleague here in March 1992 and again in April 1992 and again in
May 1992 and again in June 1992, and so on--for 2 years counting down
the times since the statute expired--trying to get the statute revived?
I have spent untold hours trying to get the statute revived, but I
have not had support from the Senator from New York. And when the
conference committee met on this subject, I did not have support from
him at that point.
The Senator was busy trying to stop this Senator from reviving the
statute of limitations, not trying to support it. I hope he has had a
change of heart, and maybe will come along by 5 o'clock this afternoon.
But the Senator from New York in the past was too busy trying to stop
the Senator from Ohio and many others from reviving the statute in
Madison Guaranty, and at all the hundreds of other savings and loans in
which it expired. That is why--too busy trying to stop us from going
after all of those savings and loans crooks who made out like bandits
with the taxpayers' money.
I want to say on the floor of the Senate some of the names of those
who made off with those millions of dollars, prominent political names
in this country, and they should have been brought to justice. But they
were not. And I do not hear anything from the Senator from New York
about them.
I have to wonder if the Senator from New York is so probing in his
questions about Madison-- knows what Madison Guaranty has in common
with Home Federal Savings and Loan of Arkansas, or Colonial Savings and
Loan of Kansas, or Home Savings Bank of Anchorage, AK, or San Antonio
Savings Bank of Texas, or the Barber County Savings Bank of Medicine
Lodge, KS, or La Hacienda Savings Association of San Antonio, or Topeka
Savings of Kansas, or Permian Savings and Loan of Texas, or Suburban
Savings and Loan of San Antonio? I could go on. There is a whole list
of them.
But we slammed the door down and have not permitted the RTC to go
after those officers and directors. Instead, we are talking about one
savings and loan because the name of the President of the United States
has been associated in some way with it.
I believe the laws ought to be equal in this country. I think the
laws ought to treat everybody equally, whether the President of the
United States or U.S. Senator or somebody who is working at a relief
agency in this country. We should not have special laws for special
people.
So I say let us extend the statute of limitations. Let us do the
right thing for the taxpayers of this country. We come out here every
day of the week bleeding and crying for $1 billion for this program or
that program. But we do not have $1 billion for that program or this
program, because we have lost so many dozens and dozens of billions of
dollars on failed savings and loans. I have not been able to get any
support from the Senator from New York when I try to make it possible
for our Government to go after them. I would think that the Senator's
inquiring mind might want to know, so I will tell him why we have not
been able to follow up on these savings and loans. What they have in
common is that they are all savings and loans that failed and whose
statute of limitations runs at the end of this month. Furthermore, they
are all savings and loans that the Senator from New York voted to
shield from investigators and prosecutors at the RTC.
Has the junior Senator from New York written the RTC about the
February 28 expiration of the statute of limitations at: Home Federal
Savings and Loan; Colonial Savings and Loan of Kansas; Home Savings
Bank of Anchorage, San Antonio Savings Bank, the Barber County Savings
Bank of Medicine Lodge, La Hacienda Savings Association of San Antonio,
Topeka Savings, Permian Savings and Loan, and Suburban Savings and Loan
of San Antonio? I will bet he has not, and I will bet I know why.
Setting aside for a moment the most laughable arguments the Senator
makes--that after a 3-year investigation, the RTC suddenly has no time
to investigate this matter, and that the clock is ticking on an
investigation he voted himself to shut down 2 years ago--the Senator
makes other curious statements.
For instance, the Senator from New York says that the RTC has been
unwilling to tell him when the statute of limitations on Madison
Guaranty Savings expires. Well, a first-year law student could tell him
when the statute expires. Take a look at the statute. It will tell you
when. It expires 5 years after the RTC took over the savings and loan.
You do not need to be a great lawyer or a jurist. You just have to read
English. That is what it says--5 years after Madison Guaranty was taken
over it expires. It is very simple, elementary English language. But
the Senator from New York--that does not get him any publicity. He
would rather write a letter and get 39 other Senators to join him in
asking when does the statute expire. I will tell him. He is an able
lawyer. He can look at the statute and say: Why did I write this
letter? I already know when it expires. All I have to do is find out
when they took it over. That is a simple, elementary question, and we
know it is 5 years from then. You do not have to ask the RTC to learn.
It is written in the United States Code in plain language.
Why is the Senator from New York so much insisting that the RTC tell
him when it would run? It indeed strikes me as odd. The Senator from
New York has come to the floor for a week to tell the Senate of his
frustration because the RTC is not reacting as he thinks it should. The
junior Senator from New York tells us that he has been asking the RTC
since he first wrote them on January 11 to tell him ``when the statute
of limitations expires in civil actions against Madison.'' I say to him
very simply, it expires 5 years after the RTC took it over. It is as
plain as black and white on paper.
If we want to do something about it, let us go back and extend the
statute on all these savings and loans. I want to tell you, I have put
so much time and effort into trying to get this statute extended
retroactively to take care of these people, to see to it they do not
get away with billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money, and I have
not had any success, not only from the Senator from New York but any
insistence from any other Member on the other side of the aisle.
The Senator from New York has told us repeatedly that the RTC has not
been willing to give him an answer to the question as to when it
expires. Let me read from this junior Senator's remarks in the Senate
last Friday, January 28:
We have on two previous occasions, January 11 and January
25, requested that the RTC--that is the body responsible for
any civil investigation--tell us when the statute of
limitations expires on civil actions against Madison, and we
have received nothing but shocking delays.''
I must admit I was puzzled. Why did the Senator need so desperately
to have a response to that question from the RTC?
I read his January 11 letter, and I think I found the answer. He did
not need an answer. The junior Senator from New York never asked the
RTC to tell him when the statute of limitations expires in that
original letter. He never asked them that question. It just was not
there. In fact, I do not see it anywhere in the letter. Let me repeat.
I do not see anywhere in the January 11 letter of the junior Senator
from New York any request that the RTC respond with the date that the
statute of limitations runs; although I am frank to say the question
was not asked, but even if it had been asked, the answer is obvious: It
expires 5 years from the date they took over Madison. In the January 25
letter, in all fairness, he does request that so-called urgent
information, but it took him a couple weeks to decide this information
was so urgent and important to him. It seems maybe the Senator is
making this up as he rolls along, and maybe he is trying to create some
issues where there are none because they might have better publicity
value.
The Senator from New York attempts to defend his inconsistencies by
stating that he has not changed his position, that he is not seeking a
further extension of the statute in the Madison case. I would accept
that statement if he would also acknowledge that if he had his way, he
would not be able to say word one about Madison today. If the Senator
from New York had his way, he would not be able to say a word--
anything--about the Madison situation today, because he was one of
those Senators who voted against the very measure which provided for
the extension of the Madison statute to this February 28. I want to
repeat that. If the Senator from New York had had his way, we never
would have been able to extend the statute even to February 28. He did
not have his way, and I am proud to say we prevailed.
Taking it further, he should also thank the President of the United
States for saving the Senator from New York from himself, for it was
President Clinton's pen which revived this statute when he signed the
RTC funding bill on December 17. That bill contained the extension that
now would run out on February 28, contained the extension that the
Senator from Ohio had put into the bill--without the support and help
of my colleague from New York.
The Senator says he does not support an extension of the statute of
limitations, that he simply wants action in the matter within the time
remaining. He is now saying maybe he will join with me for an
extension. I am not too hopeful or too optimistic, but I must say it
would please me to no end if we could pass an extension yet this
afternoon.
He raises the possibility of a tolling agreement in the Madison case,
which would have the effect of extending the statute of limitations in
just one case--not in any of the other cases that the RTC has a right
to bring--just one case does he want to toll the statute. Is there a
political reason? Is that because the Senator from New York knows that
the President's name has been mentioned in connection with the Madison
case? I do not think that is the way we ought to make laws. I think we
ought to make laws that are applicable to Presidents, Governors,
Senators, and to all of the people of this country, not just to some
people.
I would restate my views of what is going on here if it were not so
blatantly obvious. The Senator from New York and others are attempting
to thwart a President who is making progress on the issues that got him
elected--the economy, the budget deficit, health care, crime, welfare
reform, gun control, and the list goes on and on.
I respect the Members from the other side of the aisle who come to
this floor to do battle on those issues, and to speak their beliefs and
vote their consciences, even when in defiance of the President. But I
cannot stand by and abide the shrill cry of a Member who refuses to
either stand by or acknowledge his own record on a matter, who has
contributed, if not created, the very situation he claims to shockingly
deplore, and who willfully ignores the facts that undermine every shred
of his argument.
I want to repeat this again. It is 4:20. Before 5 o'clock, the
Senator from New York will receive from this Senator a proposed piece
of legislation to extend the statute of limitations retroactively with
respect to all the failed savings and loans, to make it possible for
this Government to proceed not against only the officers and directors
of Madison Guaranty, but in favor of recovering the billions of dollars
that others have not been sued for when maybe they should have been
sued for them. I have criticized the RTC when it has failed to act, and
I have no reservations in saying again that when the RTC does not act,
they are to be criticized. But the fact is, I want all the officers and
directors of failed savings and loans, who are guilty of some conduct
that violates the law, who would make it possible to recover the
dollars, to be held liable in court and not to have the defense of the
statute of limitations.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ever heard my votes described, and I
have not said anything to this date. They have been mischaracterized by
the Senator from Ohio, misrepresented, and in two instances, they were
absolutely wrong. This Senator voted on two occasions to extend the
statute of limitations. Al Smith said it best: ``Let us look at the
Record.''
On September 8, 1992, I voted in favor of passing the Wirth amendment
to extend the statute. That is the record.
On September 25, I voted against tabling that same amendment. They
were the only two votes on the Senate floor in 1992 directly on this
issue. You can twist and turn, and that is exactly what we have had
taking place today. I resent it, and it is wrong. Alfonse in
wonderland? Well, I have to tell you something. I do not go around
pretending, and not in a sanctimonious way. I say ``pretend.'' We have
the great pretender from Ohio now who can say what my record is, and it
is not there, not supported by the actual record. Great pretense. I
take exception to it. Let us talk about the one instance in which I
voted against, an extension, and that was on May 13, 1993.
We received a letter from Mr. Altman of the RTC. He said, ``We want a
clean bill. Do not add anything to this bill.''
Let me read to you what he said. ``The RTC no longer supports
extending the statute of limitations.'' I did not say that. This is Mr.
Altman. This was the administration.
Nevertheless--and I will read the Record and it is here, in the
Congressional Record, May 13, 1993. Let us not distort what I said and
what my intent and motivations were.
But let me tell you that in the debate that we had on the floor
between the Senator from Ohio and myself, I said, ``I mean, the letter
is very clear. Mr. Altman does not support this. And the letter from
the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury was clearly opposed and is not
asking for this extension.''
But then I went on to say to my colleague from Ohio, the author of
the legislation seeking the broad-based extension that you would have
many people who were not accused of wrongdoing, but who were merely
directors on the board, who would be sued. That is wrong. That is not
right. That is not what we are about. We are about wrongdoers,
intentional wrongdoing. Get them.
That is what I meant today in my colloquy with the Senator from Ohio.
I said, ``Mr. Altman does not support this.''
I asked the author of this legislation if we could limit it to the
egregious instances, to fraud. Let us limit it. Let us go after real
wrongdoers.
Now, look, I think that is pretty clear. By the way, the conference
adopted my position. The Senate did not, but the conference, as a
matter of fact, eventually adopted a provision which I would have
supported on this floor but the Senator from Ohio would not. But the
House of Representatives held to a position which I could easily
support, and which I did support and which I offered, but which was not
undertaken because the Senator had the votes and he wanted it his way.
What did the House-Senate conference say? Essentially it adopted my
proposal and extended the statute of limitations from 3 to 5 years for
fraud and other intentional misconduct.
Now, that was this Senator's proposal. I think it was right. That was
my intent. On two other occasions I voted to extend the statute of
limitations. And I think that my vote and the Record, not the Record as
interpreted by somebody else, but the Record verbatim here, the
transcript, supports this Senator's position that, yes, I was willing
to go along. And, indeed, the conference did, and I supported the
conference as it relates to intentional wrongdoing.
Now, what are we talking about as it relates to Madison? All we are
saying to the RTC is, let us know if you really are applying those
standard procedures that you wrote about.
I wonder why people are so sensitive to that. If my colleague from
Ohio or any other State comes to me as a member of the Banking
Committee and says, ``Listen, there is a thrift''--and I am not aware
of all the thrifts that have been closed or what may or may not be
appropriate action being taken by the RTC--``and we would like to
ascertain if they are seeking out wrongdoers; we have reason to believe
that maybe they are not getting the kind of attention that they
should,'' I would be happy to help anyone in requesting the RTC to give
us a status report. But that would be a real status report; to
ascertain that the RTC is on the job and carrying out its
responsibilities.
So, if there is some question that my friend has as it relates to an
institution I have not heard of--United Savings of Texas that lost $1.4
billion--I assure you I am very willing to join him or anyone else in
asking: Are there tolling agreements? Are you going after those people
who have potential liability? Are we seeking out wrongdoers? Are we
seeing to it that we are doing all we can to protect the taxpayers?
That is all I am asking for here.
So, if there is a genuine, bona fide concern that the RTC may or may
not be doing what it should be doing in other matters, I would be happy
to join with my colleagues, as the ranking member of the Banking
Committee, in asking those appropriate questions. That certainly would
not be outside of the scope of what I should be doing, and it is not
out of the scope even if it makes people uncomfortable to find out and
get an answer.
Mr. Altman and the RTC are simply being unresponsive.
Give us what we have asked for--an answer.
So to come down and be attacked on the floor, as I have, to have my
record misconstrued, as it has been, is absolutely wrong, and it is not
going to keep me quiet.
I say again that the statute of limitations is ticking. We are
entitled to some answers. Forty Senators signed a letter saying, tell
us what, if anything, you are doing in this case. We have a right to
know.
As a matter of fact, as it relates to any other institution, I would
join my colleagues if they came and said, ``By the way, we have reason
to believe that there is potential liability or claim for millions of
dollars that should be collected.''
Now, not every one of these institutions, by the way, lost their
money or went out of business, notwithstanding that they may have lost
large sums of money because of intentional wrongdoing, because of
greed, because of avarice, because of some corrupt act. Some lost
billions because of the market collapse, the real estate market, the
oil market. They may not have been run in the most prudent manner, but
that does not give us cause to start litigation against everyone in
every one of these cases. There may be some cases where the RTC is
absolutely correct in saying, ``Look, we have no actionable claims.''
We should not just be suing because some bank closed, whether it is
Whitewater or any other bank. If they find out there was no potential
liability there, potential wrongdoing, fine. But tell us. Tell us.
Again, Sergeant Joe Friday said it best: ``All I want is the facts,
ma'am.''
That is all this Senator wants.
I yield the floor.
Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I will just take one moment. I guess I
need to ask unanimous consent for about 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed for up to 10 minutes
in morning business.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I want to be clear as to what the
record of the Senator from New York in this area is.
Back in March 1992, we had an amendment to extend the statute of
limitations. And the Senator from New York voted wrong--March 1992, he
voted wrong.
Now, the Senator from New York was up for election in November 1992.
And by that time he had been converted. At that time he voted right, to
extend the statute of limitations.
Then in September 1992 in a second vote on a question of extending
the statute of limitations, the Senator from New York, again prior to
the election, voted right.
Then, he was elected and after that, in May 1993, the issue again
returned to the floor and, surprise of surprises, this time the Senator
voted wrong. He voted and refused to extend the statute of limitations.
So I think maybe I have a chance of getting him to join me. Because
in two of those occasions he voted the right way, two he did not. I
have a chance of getting him to join me in extending the statute of
limitations even at this late date. And as I previously said, I will
have a draft of a bill to him very shortly.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, we have other colleagues here whom I know
are seeking the floor to speak on other matters, health matters, budget
issues. But let me simply point out it is quite clear when I voted in
March 1992, that was a debate on the RTC funding to strip out all
provisions except for simple funding--all provisions. I voted for that
amendment because I thought it would be the easiest way to get the bill
through.
But to attempt to characterize my vote as a vote against extension of
the statute of limitations is simply misleading. Let me refer to the
Record.
Last year--and we can look at the Congressional Record of May 13,
1993--when the RTC funding bill came up again, the Senator from Ohio
came to the floor and he announced--and I quote him: that he would
offer his amendment to extend the statute of limitations from 3 to 5
years.
He stated at that time that the amendment passed the Senate twice
before, and that the managers--and the managers of the bill were
Senator Riegle and myself--voted for it.
So he really understands and knows when the issue of extension has
come up, I have voted for it.
When the Senator proposed his broad-based extension, again--and the
Record shows it very clearly--I said let us extend it, or attempt to
work out language that will extend it for egregious cases. If one reads
the Record, it is there. It is clear--for fraud, for intentional
wrongdoing.
Mr. President, the fact of the matter is that the House and Senate
conference adopted exactly that language.
Now my friend talks about extending the statute of limitations
further. I would say, to do it for any one, particular institution,
would be wrong. Would I consider extending the statute of limitations
as it relates to wrongdoing, intentional, et cetera? For all
institutions? The answer is yes.
So I would take his offer, if it is done in the manner in which we
have previously acted, but not to also place people who, through no
fault of their own other than they were on the bank board, to place
them in harm's way, when there was not intentional misconduct.
Intentional wrongdoing? Certainly, I could extend the statute of
limitations. Fraud? Certainly, I could--I vote to extend the statute of
limitations. And, indeed, I may attempt to do so and we will see if my
colleagues would like to see that done without singling out anyone to
be treated differently.
I certainly do not think the people at Whitewater should be treated
any differently than anyone else. Nor should they get special
treatment. And that is what we are attempting to ascertain.
I thank my colleagues for their patience, and I yield the floor.
____________________