[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 4, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


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

 
THE NOMINATION OF RICKI RHODARMER TIGERT, OF TENNESSEE, TO BE A MEMBER 
              OF THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

  The Senate resumed the consideration of the nomination.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Tigert 
nomination.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the nomination of 
Ricki Rhodarmer Tigert to be Chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation. I originally supported her nomination when it came out of 
the Banking Committee this past spring, and I had every intention of 
supporting her on the floor, but recent developments have raised 
questions concerning her ability to chair the FDIC in an independent 
manner. Until these doubts are resolved, I can not in good conscience 
support her nomination. Moreover, until she answers some questions 
about her independence and candor before the committee, I believe it is 
imprudent for the Senate to vote on the nomination.
  Mr. President, on March 2, 1994, along with the Republican leader, 
Senator Dole, and 41 other Republican Senators, I wrote to the 
distinguished majority leader, Senator Mitchell.
  The purpose of this letter was to inform the majority leader that we 
would object to any agreement to proceed to consideration of Ricki 
Tigert's nomination as Chairman of the FDIC until, and I quote, ``the 
Senate Banking Committee has an opportunity to thoroughly examine the 
Resolution Trust Corporation's handling of its civil investigation into 
Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan.'' Following extensive correspondence, 
debate and numerous votes along partisan lines, the Senate voted to 
prevent such broad inquiry and limited the Banking Committee to 
hearings on subjects and areas that Independent Counsel Robert Fiske 
had completed investigating or was not going to investigate at all. On 
June 21, the Senate passed Senate Resolution 229. The Senate resolution 
instructed the Banking Committee to hold hearings in only three very 
narrow areas: the death of White House Counsel Vince Foster, contacts 
between the White House and the Department of Treasury, and the 
handling of documents in Vince Foster's office immediately following 
his death. These areas were referred to as the ``Washington phase'' of 
the investigation.
  Mr. President, even though the resolution permitted inquiry into all 
three areas, shortly before our public hearings were scheduled to 
commence, Mr. Fiske informed the committee that had had not thoroughly 
completed his investigation into the handling of the Foster documents. 
Accordingly, we were down to two very narrow areas in which we were 
allowed to probe. I will refer to these hearings later, but it is clear 
that the Senate was blocked from looking into the RTC's handling of the 
Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan situation. Until we have those answers, 
I feel we should not proceed on the nomination.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the March 2 letter signed 
by 42 of my colleagues, be printed in full at this point in my remarks.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, March 2, 1994.
     Hon. George J. Mitchell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: We are writing to inform you that we will 
     object to any agreement seeking consent to proceed to the 
     nomination of Ricki R. Tigert, President Clinton's nominee to 
     chair the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, until the 
     Senate Banking Committee has an opportunity to thoroughly 
     examine the Resolution Trust Corporation's handling of its 
     civil investigation into Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan.
       As you know, the Acting Chief Executive Officer of the RTC, 
     Roger Altman, recently disclosed that he sought a meeting 
     with White House officials to give them a ``heads-up'' on the 
     RTC's investigation. Needless to say, such a meeting is 
     highly improper and raises very real questions about Mr. 
     Altman's impartiality and the alleged independence of the 
     investigation. Specifically, why were Harold Ickes and 
     Margaret Williams present, in addition to White House Counsel 
     Bernard Nussbaum? According to the Washington Post, Mr. 
     Ickes, the Deputy Chief of Staff, is responsible for 
     Whitewater ``damage control''. Ms. Williams, Chief of Staff 
     for Mrs. Clinton, had previously participated with Mr. 
     Nussbaum in searching Vincent Foster's office and sending all 
     or some of the materials to David Kendall of Williams and 
     Connally who is representing the President and Mrs. Clinton.
       We believe public hearings are required to explore these 
     and other questions involving the attendance of political 
     operatives at the White House in briefings by the head of a 
     supposedly independent agency on matters that have nothing to 
     do with the Executive Office of the President.
       We regret having to delay the Senate's consideration of Ms. 
     Tigert's nomination. Nevertheless, the American people 
     deserve to have confidence that the RTC conducts its 
     important business in an independent and impartial fashion. A 
     Congressional hearing is an appropriate forum in which to 
     examine the important ethical and regulatory issues raised by 
     the Altman-White House meeting.
           Sincerely,
         Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Dole, ------ ------, Malcolm Wallop, 
           Phil Gramm, Judd Gregg, Larry E. Craig, Trent Lott, Dan 
           Coats, Connie Mack, Conrad Burns, John McCain, Robert 
           F. Bennett, Kit Bond, Ted Stevens, Lauch Faircloth, Bob 
           Packwood, Arlen Specter, John H. Chafee, Jim Jeffords, 
           Alan K. Simpson, Jesse Helms, Don Nickles, Mitch 
           McConnell, Orrin G. Hatch, Strom Thurmond, Thad 
           Cochran, Pete V. Domenici, Hank Brown, Frank H. 
           Murkowski, Larry Pressler, Bill Roth, John C. Danforth, 
           Chuck Grassley, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Dave 
           Durenberger, Slade Gorton, Richard G. Lugar, Bob Smith, 
           Nancy Landon Kassebaum, John Warner, Dirk Kempthorne, 
           Kay Bailey Hutchison.

  Mr. D'AMATO. The following day, March 3, 1994, at a Senate Banking 
Committee hearing on regulatory consolidation, I made reference to our 
letter. I shared with my fellow committee members my concern that 
Federal banking regulators should be free of political pressure. I 
expressed dismay at the shocking disclosures about White House-Treasury 
meetings regarding the RTC's handling of Madison Guaranty. In my 
remarks at the hearing, I addressed the letter that my colleagues and I 
had sent to the majority leader regarding Ms. Tigert's nomination. I 
indicated that until we had hearings into the White House-Treasury 
secret meetings, we could have no confidence that she could head up the 
FDIC independently.
  Mr. President, especially in light of the Banking Committee's recent 
Whitewater hearings and the shocking testimony and documentation of 
numerous improper meetings between Treasury officials and the White 
House, I am now skeptical that the FDIC could be indpendently headed by 
Ricki Tigert any more than the RTC was headed independently by Roger 
Altman. The committee and the American people learned from these 
televised hearings that Ms. Tigert had contacts with White House and 
Treasury officials. Unfortunately, the committee has not had a chance 
to question her about these contacts and we should before the Senate is 
asked to vote on Ms. Tigert's confirmation. Spokesmen on her behalf 
have expressed her view that there were no contacts or one contact, but 
she has said little publicly about the meetings.
  Mr. President, questions have been raised about the number and 
substance of these contacts which Ms. Tigert should address prior to 
confirmation. For example, a member of the White House Counsel's office 
said in a recent Wall Street Journal article that he had the one and 
only contact with Ms. Tigert. I doubt this is the full extent of the 
contacts between the White House and Ms. Tigert. Moreover, I believe 
there is direct evidence to the contrary. My colleagues should not 
forget that Roger Altman, who resigned his position as Deputy Secretary 
of Treasury following misleading testimony to Congress about his 
contacts with the White House involving his recusal from matters 
involving the Clintons, only admitted to one meeting until the 
committee pressed him for the truth. With Ricki Tigert, we should have 
a chance to question her and she should have a chance to defend 
herself. Until then, I cannot support her. There are just too many 
doubts about whether or not she could carry out her duties and 
responsibilities as chair of the FDIC independently and free of White 
House or Treasury interference.
  Mr. President, the Banking Committee, under the able leadership of 
Chairman Riegle, has been tireless in improving the supervision and 
regulation of the banking and thrift industries. FIRREA and FDICIA are 
the best examples of legislation designed to prevent a reoccurrence of 
the freewheeling and inappropriate use of federally-insured deposits 
and, ultimately, to protect the taxpayer. In the community development 
bill that President Clinton signed into law 2 weeks ago, Congress 
successfully pruned costly and antiquated regulatory and paperwork 
burdens. Also, this year, Senator Riegle led the committee in an 
ambitious effort to consolidate the bank regulatory agencies. Democrats 
and the Republicans have worked together, shoulder to shoulder, to make 
certain the bank and thrift regulators were truly independent--of both 
the Congress and the administration. We have a long way to go, but the 
regulation and supervision of insured banks and thrifts has been both 
streamlined and strengthened. But no matter how much Congress works to 
ensure the independence of these agencies, all of our legislative 
efforts will go down the drain if the Senate votes to confirm nominees 
who are not truly independent.
  And, Mr. President, I want to observe that many of the financial 
regulatory agencies are not functioning properly--they are either 
leaderless, run by temporary appointees or operating without a quorum.
  Let us look at some of the agencies: the Resolution Trust Corporation 
is still without a chairperson; the FDIC has an Acting Chairperson, and 
only three of five members; it has not had a full Board in over 2 
years.
  The OTS has been run by an Acting Chairperson since December 1992; 
and the Federal Housing Finance Board has two of five members, not even 
a sufficient number of a quorum to allow that Board to do business. The 
committee held a hearing last Friday on two vacancies in an effort to 
correct this dismal record before we recess and authorize this 
important agency to act.

  Mr. President, the existence of so many vacancies and temporary 
arrangements at so many important agencies is probably unprecedented. I 
know it is unwise and I think it dangerous. This situation has 
continued too long. It is now almost halfway through the term and the 
administration has neglected to nominate candidates for most of these 
important positions. Fortunately, we have had no emergencies and the 
acting leaders have done great jobs. I agree the FDIC needs a Chair; 
however, it took the President nearly 1 year into his term to nominate 
an FDIC candidate. The position has been vacant since August 1994. Let 
us fill this position, but let us fill it with a candidate who would 
have no conflicts of interest requiring recusal from any matter at the 
FDIC.
  Mr. President, the Senate needs to confirm qualified candidates for 
these vital agencies--candidates in whom Congress and the American 
people can have total confidence. And by total confidence I mean 
confidence in both their independence and their lack of any conflict of 
interest. And the administration needs to restrain its penchant for 
attempting to interfere with the work and the decisions of supposedly 
independent agencies. During the Whitewater hearings, the Banking 
Committee heard firsthand testimony, under oath, about improper 
communications between the White House and RTC and Treasury officials 
designed to influence ongoing law enforcement activities and 
investigations at independent agencies, and to interfere with agency 
decisions involving the private affairs of the Clintons. We have direct 
testimony, diaries and documents that provide incontrovertible evidence 
of unethical--if not illegal--conduct by overzealous political 
associates and friends of the Clintons attempting to control and to 
influence the actions of agencies that Congress intended to be beyond 
the White House's political control and influence.
  Mr. President, we have heard too much lately about recusals and 
conflicts of interests in connection with the bank regulatory agencies. 
The American people, as well as the Congress, must have total 
confidence in the independent financial regulators. This is why I have 
reconsidered my position concerning Ms. Tigert.
  Mr. President, if confirmed as FDIC Chair, Ms. Tigert would preside 
over an agency that is already investigating Madison and the Rose law 
firm. At our recent Whitewater hearings, the former White House Counsel 
and others made repeated reference to her in the context of discussions 
about Roger Altman's recusal. At a minimum, the committee needs to 
examine Ms. Tigert and investigate these references further before her 
nomination is considered.
  The Senate must not proceed to the nomination until we have complete 
answers on whether political pressure from White House political 
operatives and administration insiders also extended to Ms. Tigert's 
nomination and testimony before the committee on February 1, 1994.
  Mr. President, I believe there is evidence that the White House 
interfered with Ms. Tigert's nomination and her decision to recuse 
herself from all matters dealing with the FDIC and the RTC's 
investigation into Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan. Recently, questions 
have been raised through newspaper articles and documents which suggest 
more contacts occurred between White House officials and Ms. Tigert in 
reference to her recusal. In the September 28 edition of the Wall 
Street Journal, Joel Klein, deputy White House counsel, admits that he 
discussed the issues of recusal with Ricki Tigert. I would like to 
insert a copy of this article in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Republicans Hold Up Tigert's FDIC Nomination Over Whether She Is a 
                         Friend of the Clintons

                          (By Albert R. Karr)

       Washington.--Backers of Ricki Tigert are pushing an unusual 
     argument for a Clinton nominee: She really isn't a friend of 
     Bill, or Hillary.
       President Clinton nominated Ms. Tigert, a Washington 
     banking lawyer, last November to head the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Corp. In March, Senate Republicans vowed to block 
     her confirmation until the Banking Committee was promised 
     Whitewater hearings. The first hearings have come and gone. 
     But Sens. Lauch Faircloth of North Carolina and Alfonse 
     D'Amato of New York, who led the call for hearings, are still 
     holding her nomination hostage.
       The problem isn't the qualifications of the former Treasury 
     and Federal Reserve Board official. The problem, the senators 
     say, is that the proposed regulator is a friend of the 
     Clintons, even though she has said she has only met them at 
     public functions. Meantime, the FDIC, which regulates 7,200 
     banks and insures bank and thrift deposits, has been without 
     a head for two years.
       The standoff is a case history of how in Washington a mere 
     mention in the media can take on a political life of its own. 
     The questions about Ms. Tigert's ties are built largely on 
     one blurb in Time magazine's Jan. 17, 1994, issue about last 
     New Year's Renaissance Weekend in Hilton Head, S.C., an 
     annual gathering of the elite attended by the Clintons. It 
     said in full: ``Hillary's Favorite Activity: Hanging out with 
     friends, including FDIC nominee Ricki Tigert, attorney Renee 
     Ring and Patsy Davis, wife of lawyer Joel Klein, who replaced 
     Vince Foster.''


                             public events

       In interviews, Ms. Ring and Ms. Davis both say they are 
     personal friends of Ms. Tigert, but not of Hillary Rodman 
     Clinton. Ms. Ring says she considers herself only an 
     ``acquaintance'' of Mrs. Clinton, adding that Ms. Tigert is 
     ``not as close an acquaintance'' of the first lady as she is. 
     Ms. Tigert, who isn't giving interviews, has told Senate 
     staffers that she has only met Bill or Hillary Clinton 
     casually at about 10 public events, mostly Renaissance 
     Weekends, over the past eight years.
       The White House and Ms. Tigert's defenders say the GOP 
     senators are using the issue to renege on their promise to 
     let the Senate confirm her once Democrats agreed to 
     Whitewater hearings. In a March 3 letter to Senate Majority 
     Leader George Mitchell, 43 Senate Republicans said they would 
     oppose acting on Ms. Tigert's confirmation until the Banking 
     Committee had ``an opportunity'' to examine the Resolution 
     Trust Corp's investigation of the failed Madison Guaranty 
     Savings & Loan in Little Rock, Ark., and any diversion of 
     Madison funds to Whitewater Development Corp., which was 
     partly owned by the Clintons when Mr. Clinton was Arkansas 
     governor. The Republicans also said in a news release that 
     they wanted hearings on briefings given White House officials 
     by Roger Altman, then the Treasury deputy secretary and 
     acting RTC chief executive.
       ``They really got everything they wanted and more,'' says 
     Mr. Klein, the White House deputy counsel. ``I must say, I am 
     baffled as to why they are holding [Ms. Tigert] up. It's 
     obviously an effort to use the confirmation process for 
     political embarrassment, and it's unfair to her.''


                             recusal issue

       Sen. D'Amato says that from the Whitewater hearings ``it 
     seems clear'' that the White House counsel and others were 
     directly involved in advising Mr. Altman and Ms. Tigert on 
     how to react to requests to recuse themselves from issues 
     involving Whitewater and Madison. The Senate Banking 
     Committee in February voted 18-1 to recommend Ms. Tigert's 
     confirmation after she agreed--following initial reluctance--
     to recuse herself from FDIC actions involving the Clintons. 
     Though he voted for Ms. Tigert's confirmation in committee, 
     ``I am reconsidering my position,'' Sen. D'Amato says. Deputy 
     Counsel Klein says he had the only White House conversation 
     with Ms. Tigert on the recusal issue, agreeing with her view 
     that she should decide herself what to do.
       Sen. Faircloth, who placed the original hold on the Tigert 
     nomination after casting the lone vote against her, says, 
     ``It's still there, and I'm not taking it off.'' He says that 
     ``even the limited look'' that the Banking Committee got of 
     White House involvement in Madison-Whitewater ``thoroughly 
     convinced me that we need somebody independent to head the 
     FDIC, not a friend of Bill's.''
       He says the continuing probe of Whitewater will include the 
     FDIC's supervision of ``all these banks'' for which the 
     Rose Law Firm did some work. Sen. Faircloth notes that 
     Mrs. Clinton was a Rose partner and says that ``Ricki 
     Tigert is her favorite friend. We are appointing her to 
     get documents from the Rose Law Firm? How more incestuous 
     can you get?''
       Ms. Tigert, a lawyer at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & 
     Crutcher, has no Whitewater, Madison or RTC connection. Most 
     of the controversy about her appears to be based on the Time 
     mention. Sen. Faircloth took off from that blurb repeatedly 
     during Ms. Tigert's confirmation hearing in February, calling 
     her ``a very close friend of the Clintons'' and Mrs. 
     Clinton's ``closest personal friend;'' and referring to this 
     very, very close friendship with Mrs. Clinton, limited to 
     her, [while she] says she enjoys hanging out with you.'' Ms. 
     Tigert didn't try to rebut Sen. Faircloth's descriptions of 
     her during the hearing, though she later referred to her 
     ``casual friendship with the Clintons in her recusal letter.


                         ``Hanging Out'' Phrase

       In fact, the phrase that Mrs. Clinton enjoys ``hanging 
     out'' with the women mentioned was Time's, not Mrs. 
     Clinton's. Time columnist Margaret Carlson, who didn't attend 
     the Renaissance Weekend, says she contributed the information 
     that was used in the magazine's blurb. Ms. Carlson says Time 
     editors decided to list the three women as Mrs. Clinton's 
     friends and wrote the flashline. They apparently based their 
     decision, she says, at least partly on what she gleaned from 
     her sources.
       One was a journalist who attended the Weekend, but who 
     doesn't want to be quoted on the record. This man says he saw 
     several women, including Ms. Tigert, sitting with the first 
     lady at a Weekend brunch, and they ``appeared to know each 
     other.'' He says, ``They seemed to be friends--I have no idea 
     whether they were or not. I just saw them in a room 
     together.''
       Ms. Tigert's associates say that at the Renaissance Weekend 
     Mrs. Clinton arrived late at a brunch for 1,200 people and 
     only happened to sit at Ms. Tigert's table, which was already 
     occupied by the other women. Susan Ness, a Federal 
     Communications Commission member, was at the same table and 
     confirms their account.
       So does Kathie Berlin, a former MGM executive and currently 
     a free-lance public-relations woman, who says she walked into 
     the brunch with Mrs. Clinton and sat down at the table with 
     her. Ms. Berlin, who says she is a good friend of the first 
     lady, says that she, Ms. Berlin, vaguely knew several people 
     at the table, but that she had to ask others who Ms. Tigert 
     was. ``She wasn't a friend of any of ours,'' she says.
       President Clinton's nomination of Ms. Tigert came after a 
     recommendation by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. Three former 
     high-level Reagan-and-Bush-administration officials, 
     including former Treasury Undersecretary Beryl Sprinkel, 
     recently wrote The Wall Street Journal to back her, saying: 
     ``The notion that she is a Clinton `crony' is a canard. She 
     has met the Clintons, but only in public. She has never spent 
     time alone with either of them.''
       Sen. Mitchell says he plans to try to get the nomination 
     moving, and at least some of the GOP senators who signed the 
     March letter are ready to relent. A spokesman for Sen. Phil 
     Gramm says the Texan feels that ``it's time to get on with 
     the [Tigert] nomination.

  Mr. D'AMATO. He believes that he had the ``only White House 
conversation with Ms. Tigert on the recusal issue.'' Nevertheless, the 
documents supplied to the Committee by the White House during the 
Whitewater hearings contain a memo written by David Gergen on March 7, 
1994, on the subject of contacts with the RTC/FDIC. Mr. Gergen stated 
that Ricki Tigert called him at home to ask him if he felt she should 
recuse herself from matters relating to Whitewater. I ask unanimous 
consent to insert the entire Gergen memo into the Record.
  There being no objection, the memorandum was ordered to be printed 
into the Record, as follows:

                              [Memorandum]


                                              The White House,

                                    Washington, DC, March 7, 1994.
     From: David Gergen.
     Subject: Contacts with RTC/FDIC.
       To the best of my memory, I have not had any 
     conversations--direct or indirect--with officials 
     representing RTC about the content of subjects under 
     investigation. My files also do not show any phone calls or 
     contain papers which suggest contacts.
       For purpose of the record, I wish to take note of the 
     following:
       Last Monday, February 28, I placed a call to Roger Altman 
     to congratulate him on recusing himself with regard to 
     Madison Guaranty. I though he had voluntarily taken the 
     proper step and I wanted to be sure he knew of my support.
       This past Saturday morning, March 5, Roger Altman called me 
     to discuss a public letter he had sent to Senator Riegle 
     explaining aspects of his earlier meeting with White House 
     officials, including the fact that his office had obtained 
     prior clearance from the Office of Ethics at Treasury. He 
     wished to ensure that White House officials and members of 
     the press were more fully apprised of the letter, and I 
     assured him we would make an effort to make sure people knew 
     of its contents. At the end of the conversation, I raised the 
     subject of his coming testimony to Congress and I emphasized 
     how strongly the President wished that in all such matters, 
     his people be forthcoming and honest.
       This past Sunday evening, March 6, my wife and I had dinner 
     at Mr. Altman's home. It was largely a social occasion. He 
     and I did talk about the controversies there were in the 
     press re: Whitewater but we did not talk about anything which 
     might have been untoward (e.g., we specifically avoided 
     discussion of his forthcoming testimony at the request of 
     Special Counsel Fiske). (I have previously attended one other 
     dinner at Roger Altman's home but I believe the subject of 
     the RTC never came up, nor can I recall any other 
     conversations with Mr. Altman about it.)
       On another front: about three Sundays ago (I may be off by 
     a week or so), I received a call at home from Ricki Tigert, a 
     friend, who wanted to discuss her pending appointment to the 
     chairmanship of the FDIC and the question of whether she 
     should recuse herself from matters relating to Whitewater. 
     She expressed a preference for recusal, and I encouraged her 
     to seek such recusal. She asked if I would discuss her 
     interest in a recusal with others at the White House, and I 
     promised her that I would. Thereafter, I spoke with Joel 
     Klein, who also supported a recusal. Joel notified me that 
     Monday (possibly Tuesday) that Ricki would indeed be recusing 
     herself.
       My memory is a little hazy, but I believe these 
     conversations represent my contacts with regulators in the 
     Madison matter.

  Mr. D'AMATO. If that is not a ``White House conversation, or contact 
then what is? Only after questioning Ms. Tigert, will we know whether 
to characterize it as proper or improper? Is Ms. Tigert truly acting 
independently when she is seeking opinions and advice about her recusal 
from numerous White House officials? At the time, Mr. Gergen was a 
Senior White House Adviser to the President. Their conversation was a 
White House contact. In light of David Gergen's memo, Mr. Klein's 
version of Ms. Tigert's contacts with the White House is simply 
incorrect. We need to hear from Ms. Tigert, not her spokesman or her 
fan club. We need to know the truth before the Senate can vote on the 
nomination.
  In preparation for the Whitewater hearings, the committee's special 
counsels deposed scores of administration officials. Ms. Tigert's name 
was mentioned frequently. In his sworn deposition, Dennis Foreman, 
Deputy General Counsel at Treasury and designated Agency Ethics 
Director, relates a conversation he had with Associate Counsel to the 
President Beth Nolan. Foreman was asked in his deposition: ``What do 
you remember about the discussion [with Beth Nolan] concerning the 
Ricki Tigert nomination?'' He answered: ``That obviously that was a 
very visible matter in both Congress and in the media and showed the 
sensitivity of this recusal issue, not only as it related to her, but 
obviously it was not that distant from the question that Mr. Altman was 
facing.''
  In Beth Nolan's deposition, she was asked about the same conversation 
between herself and Dennis Foreman. She claims that Mr. Foreman 
contacted her after having read a newspaper article about Ricki 
Tigert's nomination. She continued by telling the special counsels that 
Mr. Foreman had called twice on February 4 to ask if the White House 
had a view on Tigert's decision to recuse herself. I ask unanimous 
consent to insert part of Beth Nolan's deposition into the Record.
  There being no objection, the excerpt was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 Excerpts From Beth Nolan's Deposition

       A He [Foreman] had called me to ask my guidance on whether 
     the White House should take a position with respect to Ricky 
     Tigert's decision to offer to recuse herself during her 
     confirmation process for FDIC.
       Q What was that conversation?
       A It was a fairly brief conversation. He indicated that I 
     believe Ms. Tigert had called him and asked if the White 
     House had a view. He asked me if I thought we had an interest 
     in the matter. I believe I indicated that, yes. Again, we 
     always had an institutional interest in recusal promises that 
     could have precedental effect and mentioned that that was the 
     same kind of interest that had been present. When I spoke 
     with Mr. Foreman about Mr. Altman's recusal, he concluded the 
     conversation by saying that he believed he was just going to 
     tell her that she should do whatever she wanted.
       Q He was going to tell Ricky Tigert?
       A Yes.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, questions are raised. These questions 
require answers and explanations. Did Mr. Foreman ever discuss the 
issue of recusal with Ms. Tigert between her February 2 confirmation 
hearing and February 7 when she sent the committee her conditional 
recusal letter? I have copies of telephone messages, dated February 4 
and February 9, to Beth Nolan from Dennis Foreman, that suggest further 
contacts among administration officials on this matter. I ask unanimous 
consent that these messages be reprinted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     To B.N.
     Date: 2/4.
     From: Dennis Foreman.
       He said it was urgent! He said Mr. Nussbaum said you should 
     talk this morning about. He said it was subject Mr. Nussbaum 
     said you should discuss last night.
                                  ____

     To B.N.
     Date: 2/9.
     From: Dennis Foreman.
       Need to speak with you urgently.
                                  ____

     To Beth.
     Date: 2/9.
     From: Dennis Foreman.
       Wanted to add to last message. You should look at front 
     page at business section in Washington Times article: Nominee 
     to FDIC Ricki Tigert.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, why were Dennis Foreman, head ethics 
officer at Treasury, and Bernard Nussbaum, counsel to the President, 
discussing an FDIC nominees' indecisiveness to recuse? Why did Mr. 
Foreman feel that these calls were so urgent?
  Many witnesses concurred that, in light of the pressure placed upon 
Ricki Tigert to recuse herself from all Madison matters, recusal ``Q's 
and A's'' were prepared for then Deputy Secretary Roger Altman's 
briefing book for the February 24 RTC oversight hearing in front of the 
committee. Former Treasury General Counsel Jean Hansen had discussions 
concerning the impact of Tigert's recusal upon Altman's decision to 
recuse. She was asked about those discussions during her prehearing 
sworn deposition. Here is her testimony.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Q. Between February 2 and February 24, did you have any 
     discussions with anybody concerning the impact of Ricki 
     Tigert's--the controversy over Ricki Tigert's recusal and the 
     impact that that might have on Mr. Altman's decision about 
     his own recusal?
       A. Yes.
       Q. Who were those discussions with?
       A. I don't recall, but there was a question and answer 
     prepared for the testimony, for the hearings, for the 
     oversight hearing because there was a question that was 
     considered to be possibly--that possibly could have been 
     raised, which wasn't raised to my recollection during the 
     oversight board hearing, as to why, if Ms. Tigert had recused 
     herself, Mr. Altman did not.
       Q. Other than that, did you--other than in the preparation 
     of the question and answer, did you talk about the Ricki 
     Tigert question with Mr. Altman in connection with whether 
     that ought to influence his own decision?
       A. Not to my recollection.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Deputy White House Counsel Joel Klein, as I mentioned 
before, spoke directly with Ms. Tigert about the issue of recusal. 
During his deposition, Mr. Klein related the details of a conversation 
he had with White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum concerning the 
possibility of the Senate calling for recusals for some of the pending 
nominations. Let me read the question posed to Mr. Klein:

       Q. What did--can you recall about those discussions with 
     Mr. Nussbaum?
       A. Yeah, I remember a few things. I remember that the 
     people on the Hill were calling for him to recuse himself. 
     Simultaneously there was an issue regarding Ricki Tigert, who 
     was then to be nominated for chair of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Corporation and the issue of her recusal had been 
     raised at her hearing and then subsequently she had decided 
     to recuse herself.
       In that context, there were discussions that I would have 
     had with Bernie about the question of whether people would 
     recuse themselves, should recuse themselves and those 
     matters. And there are probably a few of them. So anyhow let 
     me--why don't you follow up?
       Q. Did you take a position on whether or not Ricki Tigert 
     should recuse herself?
       A. I took the position with Bernie Nussbaum--I took the 
     following position in our discussions and it's my position 
     generally, I think it's a very bad thing for people to sort 
     of go through these hearing processes, these confirmation 
     hearings and have other people extract sort of--a Senator 
     extract a blanket recusal. That is something that sort of 
     politicizes the events and I think is unfortunate. I took the 
     position with Bernie that it was certainly my hope that this 
     issue wouldn't come up for Ricki and indeed that she wouldn't 
     be required, as a quid pro quo for confirmation, to recuse 
     herself. I did take that position.

  Mr. President, why were they so concerned about Ms. Tigert's recusal? 
How can they expect the Senate not to ask questions regarding blatant 
conflicts of interest? Did they want Ms. Tigert to be the decisionmaker 
at the FDIC concerning Madison as badly as they wanted Altman to be the 
ultimate decisionmaker at the RTC? We know the lengths the White House 
went to interfere with Roger Altman's attempt to recuse himself. Did 
the White House resist Ms. Tigert's recusal?
  Bernard Nussbaum relates his side of the conversation by saying that 
he agreed with White House senior adviser Bruce Lindsey and disagreed 
with Joel Klein. According to Mr. Nussbaum's deposition:

       A. I believe I discussed it with Mr. Klein in my office who 
     expressed sometimes disagreement with me. I think Mr. Klein 
     thought that we should just let Ms. Tigert--he was involved 
     in that confirmation process so his view contrary to my view, 
     was maybe we should just--if she wants to recuse herself in 
     advance, we should just let it go, which is not that 
     important. I disagree with that and I let him know that.
       Q. Who else?
       A. I don't remember who else. It could have been people in 
     the chief of staff's office. It could have been Harold Ickes. 
     I believe there was such discussion with various other 
     people. I just don't remember them now. I do remember 
     discussing it with Mr. Lindsey. I remember Mr. Lindsey agreed 
     with me. He had significant position. He was head of White 
     House personnel or former head of White House personnel and I 
     feel very strongly about this issue.

  It seems as though everyone in the White House was talking about the 
Tigert nomination. Everyone had their own opinions on what she should 
do. How many of these people picked up the phone and discussed their 
opinions with her. Did Harold Ickes call her? Did Bruce Lindsey, call 
her? We know Mr. Klein spoke to her. But did Mr. Nussbaum share his 
strenuous objections to her to recusal with her? These are questions I 
think we need to ask her before the Senate votes. They will surely be 
asked at some point, even if she is confirmed.
  Let me continue reading from Mr. Nussbaum's deposition.

       Q. Did Mr. Klein also disagree with you about your view 
     concerning whether Mr. Altman ought to recuse himself--I'm 
     not talking about the fact that you had the conversation, but 
     did he also agree with your view on the issue of whether Mr. 
     Altman ought to recuse himself?
       A. I don't specifically recall, but probably, because he 
     also disagreed with me on Tigert, on Ricki Tigert. I don't 
     remember actually discussing that ultimate issue with him, 
     but I may well have. He's deputy counsel, and we discussed a 
     lot of these things, but I do remember the discussion with 
     respect to Tigert. He said let her recuse herself and I said 
     that would violate at least the policy that I and the others 
     at the White House wanted to put into effect.

  What kind of general administration policy on recusal is Mr. Nussbaum 
referring to? More important, how does the administration enforce these 
policies?
  It appears, Mr. President, that White House counsel felt that if 
conflicts of interest exist, it is irrelevant to the issue of recusal. 
The committee's special counsels asked Mr. Nussbaum whether he saw a 
difference between RTC decisions involving Madison as it affected Mr. 
Altman as CEO of the RTC and Ms. Tigert as head of the FDIC? Mr. 
Nussbaum responded: ``No, because the issue was the principle, the 
principle of whether or not people should recuse themselves and they 
have no legal or ethical duty to do so. That principle is the same in 
both cases.''
  Mr. President, does White House counsel totally disregarded the 
conflict of interest that exist between FOB's and FOH's appointed to 
head independent agencies that will be looking into matters of 
Whitewater/Madison and the FDIC? Certainly, the Senate should not.
  Mr. President, the interest shown by White House and Treasury 
officials over Ms. Tigert's recusal was not limited to statements made 
behind closed doors during sworn depositions. Administration officials 
publicly testified during the Senate Banking Committee Whitewater 
hearings that the Tigert nomination was of concern to many high level 
Clinton administration officials.
  Roger Altman, Deputy Secretary of Treasury at the time of the 
hearings, said that his briefing book for the February 24th hearing 
contained a series of questions and answers on recusal.

       I anticipated being asked directly about recusal, just as 
     Ricki Tigert had been by the Committee a few weeks earlier, 
     but I was asked no such questions.

  He continued later in saying that he had thought about recusing 
himself when the issue had been raised about Ms. Tigert's recusal. Let 
me read you this dialog between Senator Sarbanes and Mr. Altman.

       Senator Sarbanes. Now, it is the case that you had been 
     debating this question of recusing yourself; isn't that 
     correct?
       Mr. Altman. I'd been seeking advice on it.
       Senator Sarbanes. For what, a number of days or weeks?
       Mr. Altman. No, no, just one or two days. It didn't even 
     enter my mind until I saw that Ricki Tigert issues come up in 
     terms of the, you know, the pressure she came under to recuse 
     herself in advance, and I think that was just a couple of 
     days before February 2nd but I'm not positive.
       Senator Sarbanes. So when was the meeting set up with Mr. 
     McLarty?
       Mr. Altman. I believe it was the day before.
       Senator Sarbanes. And you set that up by calling him and 
     talking with him?
       Mr. Altman. Yes, sir.
       Senator Sarbanes. And at that time your intention was to 
     talk about the procedural aspects on this--

  At that point he sought advice on how to address the recusal issue 
from White House and Treasury officials. Let me read a comment and 
question posed by Chairman Riegle to Roger Altman at the Whitewater 
hearing.

       The Chairman. Just on this question of you just stated a 
     minute ago that the day before you were still sort of up in 
     the air on the recusal, you'd stopped in to see Secretary 
     Bentsen to get his advice. And I take it that sometime then 
     in a sense between that meeting and the meeting in the White 
     House on the 2nd, you actually had come to a judgment that 
     you were going to go ahead and recuse yourself. And when you 
     got into the meeting you gave that indication and that's when 
     Mr. Nussbaum reacted vigorously to the contrary; is that--do 
     I have that right?
       Mr. Altman. Yes, sir.

  Again, I ask, who is making the recusal decision? Is it Altman or the 
White House? Is it Tigert or the White House?
  Neil Eggleston, associate White House counsel, in answering a 
question I posed during the hearing, concerning whether Altman had a 
legal obligation to recuse himself, stated:

       I don't have enough fingers to have quite counted up the 
     number of entities, apart from myself, who are legal and 
     ethics experts who have come to the conclusion that Mr. 
     Altman did not have a legal or ethical obligation to recuse 
     himself. The discussion and the issues that were under 
     discussion at the time were not legal/ethical discussions. If 
     he had a legal or ethical obligation to recuse himself, he 
     would do so. It was political. It was how was it going to 
     look. It was where was he going to take more heat. Was he 
     going to take more heat if he stayed there or was the 
     administration going to take more heat through the sort of 
     impact of domino effect after Ricki Tigert.

  A few minutes later Mr. Eggleston again makes reference to how there 
was White House concern that the Tigert nomination would cause a domino 
effect. He said:

       The issue that Mr. Nussbaum was actually talking about at 
     the time was the perception of recusals it was the perception 
     of Rickie Tigert having to rescue. It was the perception for 
     not legal or ethical reasons. She had told I think this 
     committee that she would consult her ethics officer. And my 
     recollection from the press really was that at least to some 
     people that was not acceptable. And he was concerned about a 
     perception sort of a domino effect of how it would look if 
     people who did not have a legal or ethical obligation to 
     recuse themselves were nevertheless either being forced to 
     recuse or maybe sua sponte start recusing themselves even 
     though they had no action. That was the matter, that was the 
     perception that Mr. Nussbaum was talking about at the time as 
     it relates to this issue.

  As Mr. Eggleston finished his explanation of Mr. Nussbaum's 
involvement, Mr. Klein entered the discussion with the following:

       Mr. Klein. Senator Riegle, if I can add to that because I 
     had numerous discussions--it is my view as well and I think 
     this is something that Senator Sarbanes raised before that 
     when this started with Rickie Tigert and is, sort of the 
     price of admission other confirmation was that she had to 
     agree to a blanket recusal, no specific matter before her 
     because she was a ``friend of the First Family's,'' when I 
     know the extent of Rickie Tigert's familiarity with the First 
     Family.
       This seemed to me the worst sort of politics, to be 
     perfectly candid about it, that somehow this was going to be 
     used against the President that his nominees could not sit on 
     any matter that was in any way relevant to him and so the 
     cost of all these matters would be an extraction of recusal. 
     So when Mr. Eggleston says that there were important 
     political considerations, there were important political 
     considerations and I at least was very concerned about the 
     politics of the matter. And I think that----
       The Chairman. In that sense.
       Mr. Klein. And so was Mr. Nussbaum in that sense.

  Mr. President, recusal must have been the hottest topic in the White 
House in February. Ms. Tigert signed a limited recusal agreement after 
initially resisting it. Treasury and White House officials wanted Roger 
Altman to resist pressure from Congress as well as resist his own 
judgment and the advice of others at Treasury to recuse himself. The 
officials did want Altman to get flustered if he were to be questioned 
about recusing. All involved staff wanted to be sure that Altman would 
come across better than Tigert if the issue of recusal surfaced during 
the Banking Committee's RTC oversight board hearing to be held on 
February 24. Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary John 
Podesta met with Assistant Secretary of Treasury for Legislative 
Affairs Michael Levy. At the hearing, Podesta said the following about 
his conversations with Assistant Secretary Levy:

       On February 15, I met with Mike Levy, assistant secretary 
     of the Treasury, and discussed the expected RTC oversight 
     board hearing in the Senate Banking Committee. Mr. Levy 
     briefed me on the composition and functions of the RTC 
     oversight board. During the remainder of that week, Mr. Levy 
     and I had several telephone conversations concerning the 
     hearing. We never discussed the underlying investigation of 
     Madison, nor did I discuss that subject any else at Treasury 
     or the RTC.
       Mr. Levy and I did briefly discuss the fact that Roger 
     Altman would need to be prepared to answer questions about 
     recusal in light of the fact that Ricki Tigert, our nominee 
     to chair the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, had been 
     pressured on recusal during her confirmation hearings.

  Senator Bond asked Podesta if he were involved in any preparation or 
followup to the February 24 hearing. He says his only work on the 
hearing was the conversation with Michael Levy the week of February 14:

       Senator Bond. You were involved only in the follow-up after 
     the hearings? Is that the extent of your activity with Mr. 
     Altman as respects----
       Mr. Podesta. That's the only time I spoke with Mr. Altman 
     and I did not--I was not involved in his preparation or, as 
     it were, I testified to the two things I did that might be 
     responsive to your question. One was I did have a 
     conversation the week of the 14th with Mr. Levy saying he 
     needed to be prepared to answer a question on recusal. I 
     think that was in light of the fact that Ricki Tigert had 
     been pressured the week before that in this Committee.

  Bernard Nussbaum, former counsel to the President, stated in his 
opening statement that the possibility of recusal was not just 
academic, but a matter of principle. He said in his opening statement 
that recusal was of immediate concern to the administration.

       Just a day before this February 2nd meeting a nominee for 
     the Chair of the FDIC, Ricki Tigert, had been asked by 
     certain Senators on this Committee to agree to commit in 
     advance to rescue herself on any issues connected to Madison 
     or Whitewater. She was asked to do so for the stated reasons 
     that she knew the Clintons and was being nominated by the 
     President.
       Ms. Tigert had taken the position that, if she were 
     confirmed and asked to address Madison/Whitewater-related 
     questions, she would consult the appropriate agency ethics 
     officer and follow his or her advice. The inquiring Senators 
     told--the inquiring Senators indicated that Ms. Tigert's 
     response was not sufficient. She told her if she would not 
     agree to recuse herself in advance, regardless of whether she 
     was legally or ethically required to do so, they would block 
     her nomination.

  White House Counsel continued by saying that during the February 2 
meeting, he and other White House officials felt it was important to 
resist nominees being forced to recuse themselves in advance, when 
recusal is not legally or ethically required.

       At the time of the February 2 meeting, I and others in the 
     White House believed it was important for the Executive 
     Branch to resist efforts to force nominees to agree in 
     advance to rescuse themselves in situations where recusal was 
     not legally or ethically required. We felt that those seeking 
     Ms. Tigert's commitment to rescuse herself were tampering 
     with the agency adjudicative process.

  Mr. President, what kind of adjudicative process is he referring to? 
What about the need to avoid the appearance of conflict? Why did they 
take such a narrow view--probably, they worked to make certain that 
Roger Altman would not have to recuse himself from acting RTC Chairman 
in connection with the Clinton personal affairs and that Tigert could 
preside over such discussions and decisions at the FDIC.
  Mr. President, we may need to consider the issue of recusals in the 
future. The report the committee is preparing for the Senate pursuant 
to Senate Resolution 229 may even discuss the subject at some length. 
White House Counsel refers to the principle at stake; I am more 
concerned about the practice of putting into such a key position 
individuals with close personal relationships to high public 
officials--not to mention the President and his wife--who are already 
the targets of ongoing investigations. The narrow view that recusal is 
warranted only in the narrowest of circumstances--where it is legally 
or ethically required--is not acceptable. Even Ms. Tigert endorsed a 
broader view of recusal before the Banking Committee.
  When asked about recusing herself during her February 2 confirmation 
hearing, Ms. Tigert stated:

       With respect to any matter where there is an appearance of 
     conflict of interest, after consultation with the appropriate 
     ethics officials, I will take the necessary steps to assure 
     the credibility of the regulatory and enforcement process.

  On February 7, only 5 days after her confirmation hearing, I received 
this letter and her notarized recusal statement. In her letter she 
states:

       In addition to my own sensitivity about the need to avoid 
     even the appearance of a conflict of interest, I have also 
     consulted with ethics officials of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and through them with the Office 
     of Government Ethics. They have informed me that no actual 
     conflict of interest is involved, given the casual nature of 
     my friendship with President and Mrs. Clinton. Nevertheless, 
     because of the attention this issue has received, the FDIC 
     ethics officials concur that it would be consistent with 
     agency precedent to rescuse myself to avoid even the 
     appearance of a conflict of interest.

  Let me repeat: ``the FDIC ethics officials concur that it would be 
consistent with agency precedent to recuse myself to avoid even the 
appearance of a conflict of interest.'' During her confirmation 
hearing, she was not really worried about appearances. In answering my 
question on recusing herself, all she worried about was whether an 
ethics official would say she was ethically or legally required to 
recuse. The technicality of even though it may not look good, if the 
ethics officer says it is legally and ethically OK, then I'm not going 
to worry about it is the connection between Ricki Tigert's recusal and 
Roger Altman's recusal. No one cared how things appeared. These 
officials just cared how some ethics officer interpreted the rules on 
conflict of interest and recusals.
  Mr. President, without a chance to question Mr. Tigert and others 
carefully about these statements and documents that have come to public 
attention since Ms. Tigert was before the committee, I must conclude 
that the White House wanted her in this position in order to monitor 
and, if necessary, intervene to protect the interests of the First 
Family. The record is clear with respect to White House interference 
with the RTC; it is probably the same with the FDIC. I intend to find 
out, sooner or later. I would prefer--and I think Ms. Tigert should 
welcome--a chance to address these questions and dispel the doubts that 
I and many others have as a result of participating in the committee's 
Whitewater hearings in July and August.

  Mr. Nussbaum relates that at this February 2 meeting, Altman out of 
the blue said he was inclined to remove himself from the RTC 
investigation. He said:

       So when Mr. Altman said, sort of out of the blue without 
     any advance notice, that he was inclined to remove himself 
     from the RTC investigation, without a legal or ethical basis 
     for doing so, I felt he might create an unfortunate precedent 
     for our administration and future administrations and would 
     make a shambles of our position in the Tigert nomination.
       As White House Counsel, as an Executive Branch official, I 
     was concerned about what Mr. Altman was considering doing. 
     But I did not tell him to remain in the matter.

  Let me repeat this--White House Counsel said that Altman's recusal 
``might create an unfortunate precedent for our administration and 
future administrations and would make a shambles out of our position in 
the Tigert nominations.'' What kind of shambles? Should the White House 
have been involved in this? Was it? Shouldn't we have an opportunity to 
find out before the nominee is confirmed?
  White House Counsel continued by saying that he did not urge Altman 
to stay on the case. He said it was Altman's decision to make. He goes 
on to explain the reason he told Altman to consider not recusing 
himself:

       I made it because of the principle I previously discussed, 
     that a public official has a duty to do his or her duty. I 
     also made it because an Altman recusal would undermine our 
     position on the Tigert nomination.

  In concluding his opening statement, Nussbaum asserts:

       In Mr. Altman's case, it was all the more important to urge 
     careful deliberation since he and others such as Ms. Tigert 
     were being pressed by the President's political opponents to 
     recuse themselves.
       As I have stated, I believed then, and I firmly believe now 
     that Executive Branch officials and agency heads should not 
     remove themselves from sensitive matters simply because of 
     political advantage or expediency or for their own personal 
     convenience. They should do their duty.

  Chairman Don Riegle addressed Mr. Nussbaum at the hearing, stating 
that Mr. Nussbaum was wrong in interfering with Altman's recusal 
decision. Nussbaum justified his position by saying:

       An Executive Branch official has a duty to do his duty 
     unless he's legally or ethically required to recuse himself. 
     This affects all Executive Branch officials. We were handling 
     the Tigert nomination. What Mr. Altman was suggesting would 
     have had an effect on that nomination. I was acting in my 
     role as a senior Executive Branch official in order to get 
     him to consider whether or not he should do something which 
     might adversely impact that important policy.

  Mr. President, what is it that Mr. Nussbaum is saying? These 
appointees have an obligation to the American people to make decisions 
which will affect everyone. If there is a shadow of a doubt on whether 
a person could be a 1,000 percent impartial on a decision, then that 
person should not make that decision. It does not matter if some 
Government ethics manual or an ethics officer says recusal is not 
necessary. That person should not be involved in any aspect of the 
decision.
  Why, Mr. President, would Roger Altman's recusal make shambles out of 
the White House's position on the Tigert nomination? What would one 
official's recusal have to do with the other recusal? These agencies 
are supposed to be independent. The White House and Department of the 
Treasury should have no say or influence in the recusal of an 
independent agency official, particularly when that agency is already 
conducting investigations involving the President, the First Lady, 
their partners, and their associates. It was Congress's understanding 
that the White House was not taking a position on the issue of recusal. 
We know differently now.
  There is another point, Mr. President, that just does not make sense. 
How would Altman's recusal undermine the White House position on the 
Tigert nomination? Again, I ask, how and why would Tigert's recusal 
affect Altman's decision? As Ms. Tigert and Mr. Altman were friends of 
the Clintons, does the administration believe that these officials 
would be completely impartial on any decision connected to the 
investigations of Madison Guaranty and the investigation of the Rose 
Law firm? And who knows. This was not the time to play ``Let's wait and 
see.'' The American people could not wait to cross the Whitewater 
bridge once we got there. The decision to recuse had to be made prior 
to the Madison-Rose issues coming up before the FDIC and the RTC.
  Mr. President, the issue of Ricki Tigert's nomination now before the 
Senate is more than her friendship with the Clintons. The issue of her 
nonination is more than her decision of whether or not to recuse 
herself. The real issue before this Chamber at this moment is whether 
or not Ricki Tigert can effectively lead the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation. As I said earlier, many of the financial regulatory 
agencies are not functioning properly--they are either leaderless, run 
by temporary appointees or operating without a quorum. I want to see 
this corrected. But not at the expense of the effectiveness and 
credibility of the agency. Given the particular factors surrounding Ms. 
Tigert's nomination and the need, in my opinion, for further hearings 
in committee, I do not believe she can lead this agency through the 
important issues it must address in the months and years ahead.
  Mr. President, let me make one thing clear--I am not motivated by 
personal animosity toward Ms. Tigert--in fact, I voted to report her 
nomination from committee last February. Rather, I am motivated by a 
desire to get the facts on the table, and to make sure that independent 
regulatory agencies are permitted to operate in an independent fashion.
  Mr. President, we have now had extensive hearings into these secret 
and improper meetings between the White House and Treasury officials. 
But even now, do the American people have confidence that there was not 
improper interference by other independent agencies? How will the 
people know that interference won't continue, this time plugging any 
leaks and destroying all evidence? How can the American people be 
certain of Ms. Tigert's ability to head up the FDIC in a truly 
independent fashion?

  Mr. President, due to stonewalling by the RTC led by Roger Altman and 
influenced by White House staff, Congress had to extend the statute of 
limitions for Madison and other savings and loans by statute. Earlier 
this year, we passed a 5-year extension of the RTC's civil statute of 
limitation, by a vote of 95 to 0, as part of the Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act.
  Mr. President, Congress should have been able to rely on the agencies 
to ensure that investigation and enforcement of the laws are pressed to 
the fullest. We now know that the administration attempted--and 
succeeded--in interfering with the implementation of these laws by 
agencies that are supposed to be independent. The White House 
overstepped proper boundaries in its relationships with Roger Altman 
and Jean Hansen. The President personally sought advice about Madison 
from Eugene Ludwig, the Comptroller of the Currency and a member of the 
FDIC Board. The exact relationship between the Clintons and Ms. Tigert, 
and the White House staff and Ms. Tigert remains unknown but it is at 
least possible--if not probable--that the White House has stepped 
across the border of propriety in its contacts with Ms. Tigert. Maybe 
not, but we won't know unless we look into the matter further.
  Mr. President, the FDIC is an independent agency with a crucial role 
to play in assuring that the Nation's banks and S&L's operate safely, 
and retain the faith of the millions of ordinary Americans who deposit 
their savings in FDIC-insured institutions. Unfortunately, the FDIC has 
another crucial role--in the Whitewater/Madison Guaranty controversy.
  Ms. Tigert's relationship with the Clintons, particularly Hillary 
Rodham Clinton, has been well-documented. In January it was reported 
that Mrs. Clinton's favorite activity at Renaissance Weekend was 
hanging out with a group of friends that included Ms. Tigert. I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the article be inserted into the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From Time Magazine, Jan. 17, 1994]

                   Should Auld Connections Be Forgot

       As their somewhat wonky way of celebrating New Year's, 
     President Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton and their daughter 
     Chelsea joined about a thousand other people on Hilton Head 
     Island, South Carolina, for the ``Renaissance Weekend,'' an 
     annual gathering the Clintons have attended for a decade, at 
     which successful liberal yuppies talk about policy and 
     personal growth and make contacts. To be included in the 
     Renaissance Weekend, one must promise not to discuss publicly 
     what happens there, but despite this vow of omerta, some 
     information could be gleaned:
       What Bill Talked About in His Speech: You've got to be 
     persistent.
       What Hillary Talked About in Her Speech: Making choices--I 
     made the choice to follow Bill to Arkansas, and I've never 
     regretted it.
       Bill's Favorite Activity: Golf.
       Hillary's Favorite Activity: Hanging out with friends, 
     including FDIC nominee Ricki Tigert, attorney Renee Ring, and 
     Patsy Davis, wife of lawyer Joel Klein,who replaced Vince 
     Foster.
       Zoe Baird Moment: In audience when Bill said you sometimes 
     end up hurting people.
       Dress Code: Ultracasual. Hillary in jogging suit and no 
     makeup.
       How This Year Was Different from Last Year: No printed, 
     networker-friendly list of participants' professional 
     affiliations.
       Cost: About $1,000, not including air fare and hotel room.
       What Rush Limbaugh Was Doing over the Same Weekend: Sailing 
     in the Virgin Islands with Bush Commerce Secretary and 
     millionaire Robert Mosbacher and his wife Georgette.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Now, these connections to the Clintons may not be a 
cause for alarm in and of themselves. But Ms. Tigert has been nominated 
to run the FDIC. And that is a crucial point--Ms. Tigert has been 
nominated to run the FDIC--an agency that the Rose law firm had 
extensive and controversial dealings with--and one of the agencies with 
a central role in the Whitewater quagmire. Recent news accounts have 
claimed that she is not a close acquaintance of the Clintons. She has 
recently claimed during meetings with my Senate colleagues and their 
staffs, that she has only met the President and First Lady casually at 
about ten public events, mostly Renaissance weekends, over the 8 past 
years. However, during her February 1 confirmation hearing before the 
Senate Banking Committee, an issue was posed regarding her friendship 
with the Clintons:

       Q. Is it accurate to say that you are a personal friend of 
     both Mrs. Clinton and President Clinton?
       A. I have known the President and Mrs. Clinton for 8 years 
     and I respect and admire both of them.

  At no time during this hearing did she mention the fact that she was 
merely an acquaintance of the first family. On the contrary, when terms 
such as ``you are a very close friend of the Clintons,'' ``this very, 
very close friendship with Mrs. Clinton,'' ``favorite hanging out 
buddy,'' and ``closest personal friend'' were spoken, Ms. Tigert never 
tried to dispute that fact that the Clintons and Ms. Tigert were more 
than acquaintances. She was even asked ``Are they really your close, 
personal friends?'' She never answered the question.
  The agency that Ms. Tigert would head up has extensive ties to the 
Rose law firm. The Rose firm has represented the FDIC on a number of 
occasions. Rose also represented the former FSLIC, on numerous 
occasions--and the FDIC is FSLIC's successor. Several of these 
representations were plagued with possible conflicts of interest and 
overbillings.
  In February of this year, Mr. President, the FDIC did a report on the 
Rose law firm. The report has been criticized in the press and by 
Members of Congress. The shortcomings of this report are blatant:
  The FDIC report concludes that ``In 1989, the Legal Division lacked 
formal procedures regarding the determination of conflicts of interest. 
* * *'' This raises some serious questions:
  What exactly did the FDIC's rules require with respect to disclosure 
of potential conflicts in 1989?
  How do the FDIC's current rules differ from those in effect when the 
Rose firm was retained to sue Frost & Co?
  Would the Rose law firm's involvement in the Frost & Co. lawsuit 
constitute a violation of the FDIC's current conflict-of-interest rules 
if they had been in place in 1989?
  How can it be said that the Rose law firm did not maintain a close 
relationship with Madison Guaranty, when the Rose firm had been 
retained by Madison Guaranty for 15 months only several years earlier?
  What consideration, if any, did the FDIC give in their analysis to 
the implications of Mrs. Clinton's involvement with former Madison 
Guaranty owner Jim McDougal in the Whitewater land deal?
  Were witnesses whose statements were incorporated in the FDIC report 
questioned under oath?
  Is it true that no documents were reviewed as part of the FDIC's 
internal review that produced this report?
  My point is that the FDIC is already deeply involved with 
investigations of the Clintons, their former associates and business 
partners, and their business activities.
  Let me get back to Ms. Tigert and her reluctance to recuse herself. 
Now, it is true that Ms. Tigert has recused herself from ``any 
investigation, inquiry, or determination concerning the President or 
Mrs. Clinton in their personal capacities, currently or hereafter 
pending before the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation* * *.'' I 
should take this opportunity to insert Ms. Tigert's recusal into the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,

                                 Washington, DC, February 7, 1994.
     Hon. Alfonse M. D'Amato,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator D'Amato: During my confirmation hearing, you 
     raised a question about whether I would recuse myself from a 
     matter that could personally involve the President or Mrs. 
     Clinton. As I stated in the hearing, I have no personal 
     knowledge of any such matter other than what I have read in 
     the press, but I am very mindful of the concerns you have 
     raised. I want to resolve this issue as expeditiously as 
     possible and I assure you that I will recuse myself from any 
     such matter. I am extremely sensitive about even the 
     appearance of any conflict of interest.
       In addition to my own sensitivity about the need to avoid 
     even the appearance of a conflict of interest, I have also 
     consulted with ethics officials of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and through them with the Office 
     of Government Ethics. They have informed me that no actual 
     conflict of interest is involved, given the casual nature of 
     my friendship with President and Mrs. Clinton. Nevertheless, 
     because of the attention this issue has received, the FDIC 
     ethics officials concur that it would be consistent with 
     agency precedent to recuse myself to avoid even the 
     appearance of a conflict of interest.
       The FDIC has a long and distinguished, 60-year history as 
     an independent bank regulatory agency. The continued 
     independence of the FDIC, and the credibility of the 
     regulatory process, are my foremost concerns.
       Therefore, if I am confirmed by the United States Senate, I 
     will recuse myself from any consideration of this matter. 
     Attached is a copy of the statement of recusal that I have 
     signed today.
           Sincerely,
                                           Ricki Rhodarmer Tigert.
       Attachment.
                                  ____


                           Recusal Statement

       In order to avoid any appearance of conflicts of interest 
     or loss of impartiality in connection with any investigation, 
     inquiry, or determination concerning President or Mrs. 
     Clinton in their personal capacities, currently or hereafter 
     pending before the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, I, 
     Ricki Rhodarmer Tigert, will, if confirmed by the United 
     States Senate to the office of Chairperson of the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Corporation, recuse myself immediately from 
     participation in any such investigation, inquiry, or 
     determination.
       In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name in 
     the City of Washington, District of Columbia, this 7th day of 
     February, 1994.
                                           Ricki Rhodarmer Tigert.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, even this recusal leaves open questions: 
what does the reference to personal capacities mean? Does it cover Mrs. 
Clinton in all her capacities as a private citizen, or just in her 
personal capacity as an investor in Whitewater?
  The Rose firm, in which Mrs. Clinton and other former administration 
were partners, provided legal services to the FDIC on numerous 
occasions. Not all these legal services were rendered by Hillary Rodham 
Clinton, but we can't deny that she and the President have a stake in 
avoiding disclosure of possible ethical violations at her former law 
firm.
  The Rose-FDIC connection is one of the many topics that is not 
covered by the hearing format that the Senate adopted on a party-line 
vote in Senate Resolution 229. Since the Rose-FDIC connection was not a 
part of the Senate Banking Committee's hearings this past July, I will 
take a moment to summarize some of the allegations for my colleagues:
  First, there have been allegations that the Rose law firm overbilled 
certain clients.
  When a law firm represents a Federal agency, the American taxpayer 
ultimately gets stuck with the bill. If there are improprieties 
involving the Rose law firm's representation of the FDIC, the American 
taxpayer is entitled to know.
  A second question with respect to the FDIC-Rose connection: did the 
Rose law firm fail to disclose possible conflicts of interest to 
Federal agencies?
  In 1989, the FDIC retained the Rose law firm to sue Madison's outside 
auditors, Frost & Co. for failing to conduct adequate audits of 
Madison. The lawsuit, which sought $6 million in damages was ultimately 
settled by the Rose law firm for $1 million.
  There is no evidence that the Rose law firm disclosure potential 
conflicts of interest in that case.
  The potential conflicts included the fact that Webster Hubbell, who 
was at that time a partner of the Rose law firm, had family members who 
were in litigation involving the FDIC and Madison.
  It was Webster Hubbell who handled the FDIC's lawsuit against Frost & 
Co. Meanwhile, his father-in-law, Seth Ward, obtained a $325,000 
judgment against Madison which the FDIC was challenging in court.
  Webster Hubbell's brother-in-law, Seth Ward II was also in litigation 
with Madison.
  Hubbell's situation was so outrageous that FDIC staff raised red 
flags about it.
  One FDIC attorney warned that Hubbell's access to information 
contained in the Madison audit files could be ``damaging to our 
case''--referring to the FDIC lawsuit with Webb Hubbell's father-in-
law. He also wrote that there ``appears to be a conflict in 
representation and a question of loyalties.''
  I ask unanimous consent to insert a letter prepared by an FDIC 
attorney into the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                             Madison Guaranty,

                                    Little Rock, AR, June 8, 1989.
     Re No. 8313 Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, Little Rock, 
     Arkansas, In Conservatorship March 2, 1989, Madison Guaranty 
     Savings & Loan vs. Frost & Company, Case No. 88-1193, Circuit 
     Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas

     Ms. April Breslaw,
     Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear April: The referenced audit suit was transferred from 
     the Gerrish & McCreary Firm to the Rose Law Firm shortly 
     after March 27, 1989. The Managing Agent and Sue Strayhorn, 
     litigation coordinator for Madison, have informed me that the 
     staff attorney to whom these files were delivered is Webb 
     Hubbell. Mr. Hubbell is the son in law of Seth Ward, a 
     Madison insider, who was able to obtain a judgment against 
     Madison of approximately $447,000. Mr. Hubbell was present at 
     the trial of the Seth Ward matter and appears to have been an 
     interested (indirectly) participant in the Ward proceedings.
       Since the conservatorship, the case has been removed and 
     later remanded back to the State Court of Appeals. An appeal 
     of the remand order is being vigorously pursued. After 
     appeal, a new trial will be sought whether in state or 
     federal court. At a minimum, the state judgment will be 
     attacked under various special FDIC defenses on its general 
     inappropriateness. Ms. Strayhorn has informed me that 
     information contained in the audit files could be damaging to 
     our case, especially if a new trial is granted.
       In addition to the Seth Ward matter, Mr. Hubbell's brother 
     in law, Seth Ward, II, has initiated a suit against Madison 
     claiming a side agreement containing an interest rate 
     concession. This case was referred to the Friday firm for 
     removal to Federal court.
       I offer this information because there appears to be a 
     conflict in representation and a question of loyalties. Mr. 
     Hubbell may or may not be able to compromise our interests in 
     the Seth Ward matter. However, I believe it important that 
     your are aware of this situation so that you are able to deal 
     with it appropriately.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Paul A. Jeddeloh,
                                              FDIC Staff Attorney.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Another FDIC staffer stated that it was ``naive'' to 
believe that none of the information that Hubbell had access to would 
get back to his family.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert this letter into the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                             Madison Guaranty,

                                 Little Rock, AR, August 10, 1989.
     Mr. John O'Donnell,
     FDIC S & L Project Area Coordinator, c/o First Federal 
         Savings & Loan, Little Rock, AR.
       Dear John: Since arriving at Madison Guaranty on August 
     7th, a situation concerning a possible conflict of interest 
     has come to my attention involving Madison Guaranty vs. Frost 
     & Company. Madison Guaranty sued their former accountants in 
     1988 for negligence and breach of contract involving their 
     1984 and 1985 audits of the the institutions.
       At the time of the conservatorship, the action was removed 
     from Madison Guaranty's attorney to the Rose Law Firm of 
     Little Rock at the behest of April Breslaw, FDIC 
     investigations attorney. The attorneys who are handling these 
     accounts are Rick Donovan and Webb Hubbell.
       An apparent conflict exists in that Mr. Hubbell is the son-
     in-law of Seth Ward who was an insider at Madison Guaranty 
     and is the brother-in-law of Seth Ward, II. Both of these men 
     have sued Madison Guaranty. We are currently defending an 
     action from Seth Ward, II concerning a side agreement for 
     interest rate concessions and are appealing a judgment in a 
     case we lost to Seth Ward (Sr.) to the tune of $470,000.
       Our attorney, April Breslaw, was made aware of this 
     possible conflict. Her response is encaptulated in the 
     attached letter and letters she requested from Mr. Hubbell.
       In the process of our suit against Frost & Company, we will 
     most certainly examine practices and procedures Madison 
     Guaranty used in day to day operations. We are making this 
     information available, in detail, to Mr. Hubbell. To believe 
     that none of this information will make it back to his family 
     is naive. I do not know whether or not any information 
     upcoming will be damaging. However, I would like someone with 
     a wider scope of authority to review the situation and 
     possibly eliminate this conflict.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Ken K. Schneck,
                                                Credit Specialist.

  Mr. D'AMATO. The FDIC's February 1994 report on this conflict 
situation ducked a lot of issues and offered little more than half-
answers.
  Mr. President, at the urging of the Senate Banking Committee, the 
FDIC's inspector general is busy reviewing the Rose firm's work for the 
Government. They apprised the Senate of their progress in the following 
correspondence:

                              [Memorandum]

                                                   Federal Deposit


                                        Insurance Corporation,

                                Washington, DC, February 25, 1994.
     To: James A. Renick, Inspector General.
     From: Andrew C. Hove, Jr., Acting Chairman.
     Subject: Investigation of the Rose Law Firm.
       This is to request that you initiate investigation into the 
     following two matters: (1) the handling by the Rose Law Firm 
     of a lawsuit (captioned First American Savings and Loan 
     Association v. Lasater and Co.) on behalf of the FSLIC 
     conservatorship of First American Savings and Loan 
     Association, Oak Brook, Illinois during 1986 and 1987 and (2) 
     the 1989 retention by the FDIC of the Rose Law Firm for the 
     FSLIC conservatorship of the Madison Guaranty Savings and 
     Loan Association, Little Rock, Arkansas. In your 
     investigation, please determine whether there were any 
     conflicts of interest or other improprieties in those 
     representations and, if so, what, if any, sanctions or other 
     actions are warranted.
       Because of the serious nature of this matter, please try to 
     complete your investigation and submit your report to me 
     within 90 days. If additional time is necessary, please 
     advise me accordingly.
                                  ____

                                                   Federal Deposit


                                        Insurance Corporation,

                                   Washington, DC, March 30, 1994.
     Hon. Alfonse M. D'Amato,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Banking, Housing and 
         Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator D'Amato: I am writing to you to request any 
     information which you may have relating to the law 
     enforcement inquiry being conducted by my office into the 
     retention of the Rose Law Firm by the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Corporation. As your staff has been informed, 
     Acting FDIC Chairman Hove on February 25, 1994, requested me 
     to conduct an independent inquiry into this matter. My office 
     has initiated an audit and investigation, and has contacted 
     your staff to inform them and to obtain any available 
     information relating to this inquiry.
       Our inquiry will cover allegations of conflict of interest 
     by the Rose Law Firm in representing the FDIC in two cases: 
     the handling by the Rose Law Firm of a lawsuit (captioned 
     First American Savings and Loan Assoc. v. Lasater and Co.) on 
     behalf of the FSLIC conservatorship of First American Savings 
     and Loan Association, Oak Brook, Illinois during 1986 and 
     1987; and the 1989 retention by the FDIC of the Rose Law Firm 
     for the FSLIC conservatorship of the Madison Guaranty Savings 
     and Loan Association, Little Rock, Arkansas. The inquiry also 
     will review the report dated February 17, 1994 by the FDIC 
     Legal Division on the retention of the Rose Law Firm for the 
     Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan conservatorship. Lastly, 
     our auditors will review and analyze fee bills and charges by 
     the Rose Law Firm relating to First American, Madison, and 
     other FDIC, TRC, and FSLIC legal matters managed by the FDIC. 
     We are coordinating our efforts in these areas with Mr. 
     Fisk's staff at the Office of the Independent Counsel, and 
     with the Inspector General of the Resolution Trust 
     Corporation, both of whom are conducting related inquiries.
       It is imperative that we fully address the allegations of 
     conflicts of interest relating to the Rose Law Firm. 
     Therefore, I would appreciate receiving any documents, 
     reports, and other information relating to the retention of 
     the Rose Law Firm by the FDIC, including possible additional 
     sources of information. My staff will contact your staff 
     regarding these matters.
       Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions 
     regarding this request, please do not hesitate to call me at 
     (202) 942-3620, or have your staff call Carolyn R. Ryals, 
     Deputy Inspector General, at 942-3615, or Thomas D. Coogan, 
     Assistant Counsel, at 942-3622.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James A. Renick,
                                                Inspector General.
                                  ____


                              [Memorandum]

                                                   Federal Deposit


                                        Insurance Corporation,

                                   Washington, DC, April 29, 1994.
     To: Andrew C. Hove, Acting Chairman.
     From: James A. Renick, Inspector General.
     Subject: Investigation of the Rose Law Firm.
       In your request that the Office of Inspector General 
     conduct an investigation into certain aspects of the 
     activities of the Rose Law Firm in performing work for the 
     FDIC and the former FSLIC you asked that I advise you if the 
     time necessary to complete our work would exceed 90 days. 
     This time frame would require issuance of a report 
     approximately June 1, 1994.
       Members of my staff have now been deeply involved in this 
     work for two months. Moreover, we are coordinating our work 
     with the RTC Inspector General and the Independent Counsel. 
     Due to the complexity of the work involved, the scope of the 
     activity under investigation, the volume of documents and 
     investigative interviews, and the difficulty we are 
     experiencing in obtaining some subpoenaed documents I must 
     inform you that it will not be possible to issue a report by 
     June 1. Even at this time we are not sure when certain 
     documents will be made available.
       Let me assure you that we realize the seriousness of this 
     matter and are giving this work our highest priority. 
     Unfortunately, the nature of investigative activity does not 
     lend itself to projecting completion dates with any 
     certainty. However, you should know that because of the 
     various factors previously mentioned we do not anticipate an 
     early completion of this project.

  Mr. President, I have no reason to believe that the FDIC is not 
diligently pursuing its duty. But what if this investigation does not 
resolve all of the questions about the Rose-FDIC connection? What 
assurances do we have that the complete truth will be made available to 
the American people? What assurances do we have that the FDIC will 
follow up on the IG's findings in an independent fashion?
  Unfortunately, the limited scope of the Banking Committee's first 
round of hearings under Senate Resolution 229 did not allow us to touch 
upon anything other than Treasury-White House contacts. Chairman Riegle 
and I met with Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr last week and have 
concluded that no more ``public hearings will be scheduled until we 
believe such hearings will not impede his investigation.'' But, it will 
take many more hours of hearings to get the complete story. It may take 
the committee years to get to the bottom of the entire issue. Piece by 
piece, bit by bit, I will be persistent in trying to get to the bottom 
of all of it. Hundreds and hundreds of questions have yet to be 
answered. And as the investigation continues and more information 
surfaces, more questions will need to be answered.
  Mr. President, the potential conflict problems for Ms. Tigert as FDIC 
chair, are not limited to the Clintons. They also involve former 
Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell. After all, Hillary Clinton 
and the Rose law firm were also on retainer to Madison Guaranty during 
1984 and 1985.
  And Madison Guaranty wasn't the only failed S&L that the Rose law 
firm did legal work for. In fact, the Rose law firm actively solicited 
S&L work from the FDIC. On February 28, 1989, the same day that Madison 
was deemed insolvent, a letter was sent to the FDIC from the Rose law 
firm seeking work on insolvent institutions. In fact, the Rose law firm 
did extensive work for the FDIC and the former FSLIC, handling legal 
work on a number of failed banks and S&L's, such as:
  Corning Bank of Corning, AR;
  Penn Square Bank, N.A., of Oklahoma City, OK;
  First Continental Bank and Trust Company of Del City, OK;
  First National Bank of Oklahoma City, OK;
  Bohemian Savings and Loan Association, of St. Louis, MO;
  Central Savings and Loan Association, of Conway, AR;
  Guaranty Federal Savings and Loan, of Harrison, AR;
  Home Federal Savings and Loan Association, of Bartlesville, OK;
  Knox Federal Savings and Loan Association, of Knoxville, TN;
  First American Savings and Loan Association, of Oak Brook, IL;
  Sunbelt Federal Savings Bank of Baton Rouge, LA;
  Sunrise Savings and Loan Association, of Boynton Beach, FL;
  State Federal Savings and Loan Association, of Lubbock, TX;
  Ultimate Savings Bank/Citizens Federal, of Richmond, VA;
  Madison County S&L, of Granite City, IL;
  Home Savings and Loan Association, of Mountain Home, AR;
  Independence Federal Savings and Loan Association, of Batesville, AR;
  First State Savings Bank, of Mountain Home, AR;
  Savers Federal Savings and Loan, of Little Rock, AR;
  Home Federal Savings and Loan, of Centralia, IL;
  Capital S&L, of West Helena, AR;
  First Federal Savings, of Fayetteville, AR;
  Capitol Federal S&L, of Little Rock, AR;
  First State Savings, of Mountain Home, AR;
  Aspen Savings Bank, of Aspen, CO;
  Independence S&L, of Batesville, AR;
  Clinton Federal S&L, of Little Rock, AR;
  First Federal of Arkansas, of Little Rock, AR;
  Arkansas Federal S&L, of Little Rock, AR;
  Savers Federal S&L, of Little Rock, AR;
  San Jacinto Savings, of Bellaire, TX;
  Security Federal S&L, of Albuquerque, NM;
  American Home Savings, of Edmond, OK;
  Midwest Federal Savings, of Minot, ND;
  Tennessee Federal S&L, of Cookeville, TN; and
  Citizens Security Bank, of Borser, TX.
  Mr. President, in addition to Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, there 
are a number of other financial institutions that have been linked to 
the Whitewater Development Corp. In order to fully understand the 
operations of Whitewater, it will probably be necessary to understand 
the full relationship between these institutions, the McDouglases, the 
Clintons, and Whitewater Development Corp. Many of these institutions 
are supervised by the FDIC, and the FDIC will be called upon to provide 
information and cooperation in any investigation. Further, to the 
extent that wrongdoing is discovered, the FDIC will have primary 
responsibility to take administrative enforcement actions. FDIC 
independence is thus critical. And again, lest we forget, it's worth 
noting that Madison Guaranty is not the only relevant depository 
institution connected to Whitewater, there are several others 
identified in the press to date:
  Madison Bank and Trust (Bank of Kingston) Kingston, AR. This bank was 
acquired by James McDougal in 1980. On December 16, 1980, Hillary 
Clinton obtained a mortgage from this bank secured by Whitewater 
property. The proceeds of the loan were used to build a model home on 
the Whitewater tract. Whitewater Development Corp. paid the interest on 
the loan.
  First Bank of Arkansas (Bank of Cherry Valley), Wynne, AR. This bank 
made a $50,000 loan to Clinton used to finance Clinton's 1984 
gubernational campaign. Whitewater Development Corp. obtained a loan 
from this bank. Whitewater Development was allowed to overdraw its 
account at this bank by more than $9,000.
  Citizens Bank and Trust, Flippin, AR. In 1978, the Clintons and 
McDougals obtained a loan from this bank secured by a 230 acre tract 
that became Whitewater. Whitewater real estate agent Chris Wade says he 
deposited all Whitewater money into a bank in Flippin, AR.
  Security Bank, Paragould, AR. In 1993, Clinton borrowed $20,800 from 
this bank. The loan proceeds were made payable to Madison Bank 
(formerly Bank of Kingston). The proceeds were used to pay off Hillary 
Clinton's $30,000 loan from the Bank of Kingston. On October 4, 1984, 
Whitewater paid Security Bank $4,811 on Bill Clinton's $20,800 loan. 
This payment resulted in an overdrawn account. On November 7, 1985, 
Whitewater paid Security Bank $7,322 on Clinton's loan.
  Mr. President, if the Senate approves through this nomination the 
majority will have closed the loop. The wagons will have been 
completely circled; the Whitewater stonewall will be complete. A 
stonewall that started in Little Rock, will now run from 1600 
Pennsylvania Avenue right up to the Capitol. The Republican minority 
will have lost its most effective tool to ensure that the White House 
will not have too much influence in what is supposed to be an 
independent agency.
  In March, we informed the majority leader that we would object to 
seeking an agreement to proceed on the Tigert nomination until the 
Senate Banking Committee has an opportunity to thoroughly examine the 
RTC's handling of its civil investigation into Madison. That 
examination has not thoroughly occurred, and we should not allow the 
majority to push through this nomination at this time.
  And I would remind my colleagues that of the two Houses of the 
Congress, it is the Senate that has rules that allow the minority a 
real voice. In the check and balances that this Government is based 
upon, the Senate has the responsibility of confirming Presidential 
appointments and judges. I strongly believe that we, the Senate, will 
be doing a disservice to the American people by confirming this nominee 
at this time. I don't question Ms. Tigert's competence or her ability 
to manage such a vital part of the U.S. banking system as the FDIC. 
However, I strongly feel that the FDIC Chairperson must be someone who 
can run the place as an independent agency. I do not think that person 
is Ricki Tigert.
  Mr. President, I want to have confidence that the regulators will 
exercise independent judgment. I want to have confidence that issues 
will not be decided based on politics or personal relationships. I want 
every issue decided on the facts and the merits. We cannot afford to 
have regulators who are, or even appear to be, susceptible to undue 
political influence. And this is a standard that I want followed by 
every regulator and in every administration, no matter which party 
controls the White House or the Congress.
  Mr. President, the American people have heard too much lately about 
recusals and conflict of interest in connection with the bank 
regulatory agencies. The American people, as well as the Congress, must 
have total confidence in the financial regulators.
  For these reasons, Mr. President, I changed my position on the 
nomination of Ms. Tigert to chair the FDIC. I voted for confirmation in 
February. But I must strenuously oppose her confirmation today. If 
confirmed as FDIC Chair, Ms. Tigert would preside over an agency that 
is already investigating Madison and the Rose law firm. At our recent 
Whitewater hearings, the former White House Counsel and others 
referenced her name in discussing Roger Altman's recusal. At a minimum, 
the committee needs to investigate these references further before her 
nomination is considered.
  Mr. President, I am forced to conclude that it would be imprudent for 
the Senate to consider Ms. Tigert's nomination. Despite her 
considerable qualifications, I do not believe she should be confirmed 
by the Senate for this position. I urged the President to withdraw her 
name. Today, I urge my colleagues to vote against her confirmation.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the hour 
of 10 a.m. having arrived, the Senate will now vote on the nomination.
  The question is, will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Ricki Rhodarmer Tigert, of Tennessee, to be a Member of the Board of 
Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation?
  On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] is necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] and 
the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 7, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 317 Ex.]

                                YEAS--90

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--7

     Brown
     D'Amato
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Helms
     Smith
     Wallop

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bond
     Kennedy
     Stevens
  So the nomination was confirmed.

                          ____________________