[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.
____________________