[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.

                          ____________________