[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 26 (Thursday, March 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                        ABUSE OF EXECUTIVE POWER

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am a senior member of the Senate Banking 
Committee, and there are very serious questions which have been raised 
about possible abuse in the executive branch of the power of the 
Federal banking regulators and of the White House. Possible insider 
dealing at the Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan is an issue that needs 
to be resolved by the special prosecutor in Arkansas. There is also 
another tragic death that has to be investigated.
  But there is an issue clamoring for congressional airing under our 
system of checks and balances, and that is: Has there been any misuse 
or abuse of executive power in this administration over the 
investigation?
  This is one of the most important responsibilities in our system of 
checks and balances, and that is to make sure that no branch of 
Government is allowed to misuse its power. The Constitution is clear 
that this Senate, as well as the House, has a responsibility to be a 
check on the misuse of executive power.

  I believe it is in everyone's interest, the public's, the President's 
and, foremost, the Nation's interest that we air these issues out and 
get them behind us. The President has stated forcefully that he has 
nothing to hide, that he has done nothing wrong. Then let us question 
the administration officials who stand accused of ethical breaches, 
give them an opportunity to explain their actions to the public and 
move on to other issues.
  I have already stated that I believe a number of the officials in the 
executive branch have not served the President well. Several have 
rescued themselves from action and others have planned to leave 
Government.
  I have questions beyond the scope of civil or criminal prosecution, 
but that are central to the issues of abuse of power, public trust and 
integrity. If there are not discussions, in which administration 
officials are questioned about their actions, then we probably will not 
get straight answers. That would be damaging to this President and, 
more importantly, the office of the Presidency.
  What everyone must understand is that ethical lapses--sufficient, 
perhaps, to be a breach of the public's trust--are not necessarily 
crimes. And the independent counsel is looking for crimes.
  So what does this administration and what does Congress do about 
those individuals who have clearly undermined our faith in their 
abilities to handle their responsibilities fairly--but have not 
committed a crime?
  Do we wait 2 years for The Special Prosecutor's report, leaving them 
on the job during the interim? Obviously, that does not make any sense. 
And, of course, there are a series of other questions that Mr. Fiske 
will not be asking.
  Last week, as part of our oversight hearings on the operation of the 
Resolution Trust Corporation, I asked a series of questions to the 
acting head of the RTC. My staff received strong criticism from staff 
on the other side of the aisle for my asking such stupid questions and 
for our pursuing those questions.
  However, as the answers to those questions came out during the week, 
one official rescued himself from further work on this matter, 10 
subpoenas were issued to officials in the Treasury, the RTC, and the 
White House, and, among other things, the White House counsel announced 
his resignation.
  For those people who say that congressional investigations do not 
mean anything, do not do anything, I would say, for asking a couple of 
stupid, inappropriate questions, we have had some spectacular results.
  That is a not the objective, though. The objective is to get at the 
facts.
  Let me take an issue on which I think several administration 
officials should comment. Let me lay it out.
  For several years, the Resolution Trust Corporation took the position 
that the statute of limitations on savings and loan prosecutions should 
be extended, because they were concerned about the sheer volume of 
cases. The RTC and other banking regulators felt that they needed 
additional time to complete their complicated cases against S&L 
thieves. By extending the statute of limitations from 3 to 5 years the 
RTC would have time to build evidence and pursue these civil cases. If 
the statute of limitations were allowed to expire, then the RTC would 
have to drop cases because the 3-year time limit had run out.
  A brief chronology of this issue is in order:
  In 1992 two votes were held in the Senate on the specific issue of 
extending the statute of limitations, and the extension was also 
included in other bills by consent. Overall, the Senate passed the 
extension provision in three separate bills, but the House did not act. 
During this period, the RTC supported the extension, because they had 
already seen the statute of limitations expire on 274 thrifts by 
September 1992, and deadlines were occurring every week.
  However, just 9 months and an intervening election later, the RTC 
changed its tune. In a copy of May 4, 1993, the acting RTC chief, Roger 
Altman, wrote Chairman Henry Gonzalez of the House Banking Committee to 
oppose extending the statute of limitations on savings and loans and 
civil prosecution stating:

       Over a year ago the RTC generally supported legislative 
     efforts to extend the statute of limitations because its 
     Professional Liability Section [PLS] was facing a peak 
     number of institutions which were closed in 1989 * * * The 
     limitation period expired during this time for 410 of the 
     752 thrifts under RTC control for PLS purposes. * * *

  But he then went on to state:

       The RTC has no need at this time either to revisit 
     ``closed'' claims arising in institutions in which the 
     limitation period had expired or to extend the limitation 
     period prospectively * * *.

  If the Congress had listened to Mr. Altman's recommendation, then the 
civil prosecution of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan potentially 
involving the Clintons never would have been reopened.
  And according to the Washington Post, the key civil case that the RTC 
is now reviewing involved Madison's representation by Mrs. Clinton and 
the Rose law firm of Little Rock.
  So, did Mr. Altman know that his action could have jeopardized the 
case against Madison and potentially against the individuals, including 
the Clintons? Did other administration officials who participated in 
this policy reversal know that it would have permanently shut down the 
civil prosecution in the Madison case? Was anyone from the White House 
consulted on this significant policy reversal?
  These are serious questions about public trust and potential abuse of 
power which are not the province of a special prosecutor--should not 
be; are not--and will not be answered thoroughly until administration 
officials testify before Congress. Mr. Altman may have a good 
explanation for the RTC's policy reversal, and he and other officials 
should have an opportunity before Congress to explain this action.
  If the case against Madison, and the other individuals including the 
Clintons did play a role in the RTC's policy reversal, then the abuses 
of power will have reached a new low. Prosecutions against S&L crooks 
across the country could have been shut down prematurely just in order 
to solve one problem. I think the officials involved should have an 
opportunity under questioning to explain this decision, and I would 
think that they would want it.
  Personally, I am deeply concerned by this question, because I 
listened to the RTC's opinion and voted with them, relying on their 
judgment. Many others in Congress also relied on Mr. Altman's position 
and voted to end the statute of limitations as the RTC requested. I 
think those of us who had voted that way would want an opportunity to 
ask these serious questions of administration officials, because that 
is not the province of the special prosecutor.
  Some may want to turn this investigation into a partisan battle. Some 
may want to use it to endanger the President's agenda and the office of 
the Presidency.
  That is not our purpose. I suggest it does no credit to those on the 
other side who charge that it is, nor to those on the other side who 
hurtle personal accusations against Senators who are raising the 
question.
  Treating this serious situation like a political campaign only makes 
one wonder what there is to hide. If there is nothing to hide, let us 
open it up, show it, and get on with it.
  The Banking Committee under Senator D'Amato's strong leadership is 
trying to perform its responsibility to ensure that the power given to 
the executive branch by the people has not been abused. With Senator 
D'Amato in the lead, one way or another I believe we will get that job 
done.
  We certainly intend to.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor].
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I wonder if my colleague from Missouri will 
yield for a question?
  Mr. BOND. I would be happy to.
  Mr. PRYOR. The question I pose to my very good friend and neighbor 
from Missouri is as follows. You spoke of your membership on the 
Banking Committee, I wonder if the Senator from Missouri actually asked 
Mr. Altman those particular questions in the hearing last week, the 
questions that you now say that he should now come before the Congress 
and answer? Did the Senator from Missouri pose those questions to him, 
at that appropriate time, in the Banking Committee hearing?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, to answer that question, in the time 
allotted me in the Banking Committee hearing, I asked Mr. Altman 
questions about whether he had advised the White House or anyone in the 
White House about the criminal referral of the S&L case. I asked if 
anybody on his staff had advised the White House.
  He advised me that they had not. It was 3 days later that he then 
called me in the evening to say that information was incorrect. I did 
not ask the question because I did not see--and it was later brought to 
my attention--the May 4 specific terms of the letter. That was brought 
to my attention after the hearing. If Mr. Altman comes before the 
Banking Committee again I assure my colleague from Little Rock I will 
give him the opportunity to answer those questions.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, would my friend from Missouri answer 
another question?
  Mr. BOND. I will be happy to.
  Mr. PRYOR. I wonder if the Senator from Missouri has received or had 
the opportunity to read a letter, written by Robert Fiske, Jr., the 
independent counsel, addressed to Chairman Riegle and the ranking 
member, Mr. D'Amato of New York, dated March 7? I wonder if my friend 
from Missouri has read this letter?
  Mr. BOND. I have not.
  Mr. PRYOR. I wonder if the Senator from Missouri would comment on 
this particular sentence in the letter from Mr. Fiske to Senators 
Riegle and D'Amato.

       Inquiry into the underlying events surrounding Madison 
     Guaranty Savings and Loan, Whitewater, and CMS, by 
     Congressional Committee would pose a severe risk to the 
     integrity of our investigation. Inevitably, any such inquiry 
     would overlap substantially with the grand jury's activities. 
     Among other concerns, the Committee certainly would seek to 
     interview the same witnesses or subjects who are central to 
     the criminal investigation.

  I wonder if the Senator would comment on this particular writing?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I will be happy to. That letter very clearly 
sets out the legitimate concern of the special prosecutor, Mr. Fiske.
  Mr. Fiske has taken the position that he does not want the Congress 
intervening in any of the activities in Little Rock, what went on at 
Madison Guaranty.
  My question to Mr. Altman, that I phrased today, was: Was he even 
aware of it when he made a policy recommendation to this body? That I 
submit, Mr. President, does not have anything to do with whether there 
were any illegal, criminal, or perhaps liability-inflicting actions 
taken by the people involved at Madison Guaranty or Whitewater. It is a 
totally different case.
  I would say also to my good friend from Arkansas, that Mr. Fiske I 
believe was clear, as a result of discussions he held on the Hill 
yesterday, that his primary concerns were, among others, that he does 
not support any congressional investigation. Prosecutors generally do 
not. He did not want to have immunity granted. He did not want people 
who were going to have to testify --he did not want his referral made 
public. He did not want to grant immunity. He did not want people who 
were to be questioned under subpoena questioned by a congressional 
committee prior to the time that he would question them.
  I submit if Mr. Altman did know about the Madison Guaranty situation, 
and even if he did recommend to Congress that the statute of 
limitations expire, there is absolutely no grounds--there is absolutely 
no grounds for a criminal proceeding against him. I think it is a 
serious matter of not being straight with the Congress, but I do not 
believe we should invoke criminal proceedings to deal with that. I 
believe we can deal with that in the political process. So that has 
nothing to do with the investigation of the special prosecutor. And I 
daresay it will not have anything to do with the investigation by the 
special prosecutor.

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, let me just finally state--I know Senator 
Hollings wants to get back on the floor and continue with S. 4--but 
finally I would like to say, Mr. President, to my very good friend from 
Missouri, Chairman Riegle held the hearing record open after the RTC 
hearing so that any follow-on questions could be asked of him in 
writing.
  I am just curious, I wonder if the Senator from Missouri has availed 
himself of that opportunity? An opportunity that I might add that 
exists as we speak right now?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I will avail myself of that opportunity. I 
think that is an important question, if we can get that answered. I 
would prefer to have questions answered in an open committee hearing 
where we can question the witness and follow up.
  I used a number of followup questions because I was not convinced of 
the answers when Mr. Altman was in front of us, and I think that my 
second and third questions and fourth and fifth questions would depend 
upon his first answer and subsequent answers. I do not believe that 
investigating a matter as complex as the decision to oppose extending 
the statute of limitations can well be answered by a question submitted 
for the record. That is not the role of questions submitted for the 
record.
  Mr. PRYOR. Well, Mr. President, I am not going to pursue this matter 
any further today. But it appears that almost every other hour on the 
floor of the Senate, it has gotten to be the pattern now that one of 
our colleagues will come over and attempt to impugn someone's integrity 
or make some assertion about someone's character or their lack of 
honesty, or what have you. It appears that the pattern has been set, 
and we have seen that pattern over the past several weeks.
  So I just think that it is time we set the record straight; that we 
take the advice of the independent counsel and wait until the proper 
time for any hearings. And if congressional hearings are justified, we 
will hold congressional hearings, but to hold congressional hearings at 
the moment that the grand jury is meeting is unwise--and, by the way, 
Mr. President, the grand jury, as we stand here on the floor of the 
Senate, is meeting, actively meeting, and interviewing witnesses in 
this whole case.
  I hope we will listen to the plea of the independent counsel and use 
our common sense and attempt to make certain that the facts--that the 
facts--are ascertained. Let us listen to Mr. Fiske, a respected and 
Republican special counsel, and let him do his work without 
congressional interference.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I will say simply to my good friend from 
Arkansas, whose integrity I respect, that I trust that he was not 
directing any comments to me because I have come here to ask questions. 
I have seen allegations and accusations made about people on this floor 
many times. But we are attempting to get congressional authorization to 
hold hearings, to ask questions which are not going to be the province 
of the investigation by the special prosecutor.
  I do not want to impede that. I do have a series of questions and I 
believe my colleagues have questions that deserve to be answered.
  I suggest to my good friend that when those hearings are scheduled, 
then there will not be need to come to the floor to talk about the 
questions that should be asked if there were that opportunity.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank my good friend from Arkansas for 
giving me the opportunity to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________